4
10
46
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/75e3b6258aa063016e67c00d5a898908.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CnhVMMyjMoErzKG9VTv90o6nEmrKNRw6B-G0QsMKX9g2S-J8MKLV0YTgCdQK4pY3TyQBfKbqkLWswKgl7RGks4sfewQLUB2Njz-ko9eRZ2NBBGUNaBgurATTGw3-QR1Bd6VLV9q1FjPuNlpFWWh1tOOGdst7o0MNvhnnirYLvcjoeoDgtc1gyIWOUZtGKVrn-OthHrA4gHmM7tKpxktCBC7VVOXvcOKXVRW202iwiF3kI%7EdzH1lO34PE1fnj6XNju5M22gwbFvRDOQ8onSP5ESY%7EFmGoN3fclu2dpn1UEFB-0ybjJyqXbZAzJ7-ljh9zhLR2r5r%7ELIZf8vVNw%7ElVTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a39b5aa4e1b7aafecefcb4e0505e4610
PDF Text
Text
iftogal institution of <£reat Britain.
WEEKLY EVENING MEETING,
Friday, January 30, 1857.
u
William Pole, Esq. M.A. F.R.S. Treasurer and VicePresident, in the Chair.
Rev. F. D. Maurice, M.A. M.R.I.
Milton considered as a Schoolmaster.
Milton was an actual schoolmaster : his letter to Mr. Hartlib,
explains his idea of education. In the year 1639, after his return
from Italy, he took a house in St. Bride’s Churchyard; after
wards one in Aldersgate Street, for the instruction, first, of his two
nephews, and then of the children of some of his friends. Accord
ing to Dr. Johnson, several of Milton’s biographers have shown a
desire to shrink from this passage of his life altogether, and have
wished to represent his teaching as gratuitous. Johnson himself,
while he ridicules this folly, sneers at Milton for returning to Eng
land, because his countrymen were engaged (as he thought) in a
struggle for liberty, and then vapouring away his patriotism in a
private boarding-school.
4
The earliest biographer of Milton, Edward Phillips, his nephew
and pupil, is not open to the charge of regarding this occupation of
Milton as a disgrace, or of hinting that he undertook it without
remuneration. The others had probably had a notion that Alders
gate Street was not the place for a poet to dwell in, aud that his
work ought to be of a specially etherial kind. But Chaucer was
Comptroller of Petty Customs, in the port of London; Spenser
was born in East Smithfield, and died, it is to be feared, “for lack
of bread,” in King Street, Westminster; Shakespeare was busy at
the Globe Theatre during the most important years of his life;
and Milton himself was not only born at the Spread Eagle, in
Bread Street, not only received his education at St. Paul’s School,
but had evidently a lingering love for London, whenever for a short
time he was separated from it. There is clear evidence that he
preferred the Thames to the Cam. Even in the genial years that
�2
Rev. F. D. Maurice,
[Jan. 30,
he passed at his father’s house m Horton, when he was writing
“ L’Allegro,” “ Il Penseroso,” “ Comus,” “ Lycidas,” he was still
paying frequent visits to London, that he might perfect himself in
his father’s favourite study of music, and in the mathematics. And
finally, he left Italy, where he had passed so many months of
exquisite delight, and where he had received homage so unusual for
any dweller on this side of the Alps, as soon as he heard of the
probable meeting of the new (the Long) Parliament.
Johnson’s complaint is refuted by his own sensible opinion that
Milton taught for money, and not for amusement. Since he had
determined that he ought to oppose the measures of the Court, was
it not the duty of an honourable and prudent man to secure himself
against the bribes of the Court ? The patronage of Charles I. was
bestowed with liberality and discernment. The report that a young
man had come to London, who had received panegyrics from the
academies and from the most eminent men of letters in Italy, was
likely enough to reach the queen or the archbishop. There was
nothing in Milton’s previous career to render it improbable that he
might be induced to use his pen in their favour. Instead of de
nouncing court entertainments, he had written a mask; he could
be favourably spoken of by the family at Ludlow Castle. Money
was important to him, for he had tastes that were expensive. No
one would have felt more the charms of cultivated and refined
society. Might not his scheme of the private boarding-school then
be a very reasonable means of preventing him from vapouring
away his patriotism, first by making him independent of his pen ;
secondly, by making him a less creditable associate for those who
would have been glad to amuse themselves with his learning and
eloquence ?
We learn from Howell’s “ Londinopolis,” printed in 1657, that
Aldersgate Street “ resembled an Italian street more than any other
in London.” Phillips speaks of it as “ freer from noise than any
other.” Mr. Cunningham shows, in his Handbook, that it was the
residence of distinguished noblemen. Milton must have strained a
point to hire a house in such a situation. That he did so, is one
sign of the earnestness with which he entered upon his task. We
know, from his letter to Mr. Hartlib, that he regarded the building
in which the education was conducted as a part of the education
itself.
It is useless to speculate whether any of the friends to whom
his letters or his sonnets are addressed committed their sons or
kinsmen to bis care. The names of John and Edward Phillips are
all that have come down to us. Of these men, through the labours
of Mr. Godwin, we have more information than it is generally
possible to obtain respecting persons of their calibre. They were
the younger brethren of that “ fair infant whose death by a cough ”
is immortalised in one of Milton’s early poems. When his sister
married a second time, he took the boys into his house. Both
�1857.]
Milton considered as a Schoolmaster.
3
became industrious literateurs. Both, even before the Restoration,
became Royalists. Both for a time fell into the licentiousness
which so commonly accompanied that reaction. John Phillips
began with answering an anonymous reply to his uncle’s defence;
then wrote a vulgar satire upon Presbyterians ; became a travestier
of Virgil ; a dishonest translator of Don Quixote ; a hack of the
booksellers ; in one discreditable passage, a reviler of Milton.
No doubt the elevation of his uncle’s character may have ex
asperated the grovelling tendencies in him. If he had been under
the direction of a high-minded Royalist, he would probably
have become a self-willed Puritan. The flogging of Busby would
have been the most useful discipline for him. But he nowhere
attributes his disgust at Puritanism to Milton’s austerity. Edward
Phillips, who shared that disgust, proves such a notion to be impos
sible. Nearly the last of his long series of books was the biography
of his uncle. In it he recurs with affectionate reverence to the
education he had received in Aldersgate Street, gives an account
of that education, which shows that it embraced, as we might expect
it would, every kind of study; that the tone of the teaching
was noble, and that Milton knew when to unbend the bow as well as
to nerve it. Edward Phillips speaks with warmth, and something
of remorse, of the blessings which his school years might have been
to him if he had passed them aright.
Johnson, who knew nothing concerning the Phillipses, except
that one of them had written the “ Theatrum Poetarum,” speaks of
the small fruit which proceeded from the “wonder-working
academy ” in Aldersgate Street. The fruits may have been unripe
and unsatisfactory. Milton may have been disappointed in this as
in his other hopes ; other noble men have been so before and since.
No one ever doubted that his own Samson was the image of him
self ; that the strong warrior became the blind and despised
sufferer. But Samson was victorious in his death. There was a
<£ Paradise Regained ” as well as a “ Paradise Lost ” in Milton’s
history. His book on Education tells us what he learnt, and what
we may learn by his school experiments. He never pretended that
these worked any wonders ; he does not even allude to them in his
writings. His scheme of education certainly resembles in its prin
ciples that which Edward Phillips speaks of. It was not, there
fore, a mere paper scheme ; it referred to actual living boys, whom
he had seen and tried to form. But the scale of it is one which he
could never have attempted; and for aught that appears in the
letter, he may have been led to it as much by a sense of his
failures as by pride in his success.
In England we have grammar schools, and what are called
commercial schools. In Germany there are gymnasia and real
schools. The idea of the letter to Mr. Hartlib is, that this division
is unnecessary and artificial, that the knowledge of words is best
obtained in union with the knowledge of things ; that each is helpful
�4
Rev. R. D. Maurice,
[Jan. 30,
and necessary to the other. His maxim that “ language is but the
instrument conveying to us things useful to be known,” might lead
us to think that he did not regard language as a direct means of
culture. This would be a hasty inference. He looked upon the
reading of good books as the best and only means of obtaining a
knowledge of language. He protests, therefore, against “ the pre
posterous exaction of forcing the empty wits of children to compose
themes, verses, and orations,” as a way to obtain a knowledge of
the language. But the author of a host of Latin elegiacs, the Latin
correspondent of foreign courts, is not so inconsistent with himself
as to despise such exercises. He regards them as “ the acts of ripest
judgment, and the final work of a head filled by long reading and
observing, with elegant maxims, and copious invention.” This is
not the language of a rebel against scholarship, but of a severe and
fastidious scholar. His compassion for boys is combined With horror
for their solecisms.
Milton’s idea of education is strictly Baconian : not in this
sense, that he had Bacon’s preference for physical studies to humane
or moral studies ; but in this, that he protests against that method
which starts from abstractions and conclusions of the intellect, and
maintains that all true method must begin from the objects of sense.
He may not have been well read in the “ Novum Organum; ”
but he could not have applied its maxims more strictly in a new
direction than he has done. Possibly his protests against making
logic and metaphysics the introduction to knowledge in the Univer
sities, when they ought to be the climax of knowledge, were more
suitable to his own day, when boys went to Cambridge or Oxford
at fifteen or twelve, than to ours. But if it be so, we ought to be
very careful that our youths do acquire the early experimental
training that he recommends, before they venture upon the higher
and more abstract lore : otherwise we may have to complain, as he
had, that “ they grow into a hatred and contempt of learning,” and
that when “ poverty or youthful years call them importunately their
several ways, they hasten to an ambitious and mercenary, or igno
rantly zealous divinity,” or to the mere “ trade of law,” or to “ state
affairs, with souls so unprincipled in virtue and generous breeding,
that court shifts and tyrannous aphorisms appear to them the highest
points of wisdom,” while “ some of a more airy spirit live out their
days in feasts and jollity.”
Passing from his principles to his application of them, we may
find abundant excuses for criticism, and, if we covet the reputation
of wits, for ridicule. He wished his college to be both school and
university; the studies therefore proceed in an ascending scale,
from the elements of grammar to the highest science, as well as to
the most practical pursuits. The younger boys are to be especially
trained to a clear and distinct pronunciation, “ as like as may be to
the Italian.” Books are to be given them like Cebes or Plutarch,
which will “ win them early to the love of virtue and true labour.”
�1857.]
Milton considered as a Schoolmaster.
5
In some hour of the day they are to be taught the rules of arith
metic and the elements of geometry. The evenings are to be taken
up “ with the easy grounds of religion, and the story of scripture.”
In the next stage they begin to study books on agriculture, Cato,
Varro, and Columella. These books will make them in time
masters of any ordinary Latin prose, and will be at the same time
“ occasions of inciting and enabling them hereafter to improve the
tillage of their country.” The use of maps and globes is to be
learnt from modern authors; but Greek is to be studied, as soon
as the grammar is learnt, in the “ historical physiology of Aristotle
and Theophrastus.” Latin and Greek authors together are to teach
the principles of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and geography.
Instruction in architecture, fortification, and engineering, follows.
In natural philosophy we ascend through the history of meteors,
minerals, plants, and living creatures to anatomy. Anatomy leads
on to the study of medicine.
The objections to some of these plans are too obvious to need
any notice. No one will suppose that natural philosophy is to be
learnt from Seneca, or agriculture from Columella. Every one
will admit readily that his own amazing powers of acquisition led
Milton to overrate the powers of ordinary boys. But it would
seem a poor reason for not availing ourselves of the hints that he
gives us, that we have means of following them out which he had
not: a poorer reason still for not profiting by the warnings which
he gives us against filling our pupils’ heads with a mere multitude
of words, that he perhaps asked them to take in more both of words
and things than they would be able comfortably to carry. If he is
an idealist, he is certainly also a stern realist. He would have us
always conversant with facts rather than with names. He aims at
the useful as directly as the most professed utilitarian. The pupils
are to have “ the helpful experiences of hunters, fowlers, fishermen,
shepherds, gardeners, and apothecaries,” to assist them in their
natural studies. These studies are to increase their interest in
Hesiod, in Lucretius, and in the Georgies of Virgil. The incentive
for studying medicine is, that they may perhaps “ save armies by
frugal and expenseless means, and not let the healthy and stout
bodies of young men under them rot away for want of this (medi
cal) discipline.”
Two other objections have been raised by Dr. Johnson against
this scheme of education. The first will, probably, not have great
weight with the members of the Royal Institution, for it turns upon
the comparative worthlessness of the physical sciences. The other
is expressed in some very elegant sentences, maintaining that the
formation of a noble and useful character is the true end of educa
tion. One cannot help deploring that maxims so good and welldelivered, should be so utterly thrown away. They are absurdly
inapplicable to Milton’s letter. It is throughout a complaint that
the existing education was not sufficiently directed to the purpose of
�6
Milton considered as a Schoolmaster.
[Jan. 30, 1857/
forming brave men and good citizens. It is throughout an assertion
that that is the only purpose which any education ought to aim at.
The classics are not resorted to for the purpose of forming a style,
but of instilling manly thoughts, which a higher wisdom may purify
and make divine. Because the Englishman is a poor creature when
he is busy with abstractions, and the strongest of all when he is
dealing jvith realities, Milton would have him trained in these.
All exercises and all recreations are to contribute to the same end.
The pupils are to learn “the exact use of their weapon,” both
as “ a good means of making them healthy, nimble, and well in
breath, and of inspiring them with a gallant and fearless courage,
which being tempered with seasonable precepts of true fortitude
and patience, shall turn into a native and heroic valour, and make
them hate the cowardice of doing wrong.” In their very sports
they are to learn the rudiments of soldiership.
Music is not recommended as a graceful recreation to a few,
but as an instrument of making all the pupils “ gentle from rustic
passions and distempered passions.”
Certainly whatever the errors of Milton’s system may have
been, its ends were as noble and as practical as those of any that
was ever conceived. An institution trained, as this is, to profit by
the experiments of honest seekers in natural science, even if those
experiments prove failures, will not despise the experiments of a
moralist and a patriot who may have committed mistakes which the
most ignorant may detect, who had a righteousness of purpose
which the wisest will be most ready to admire and most eager to
possess.
[F. D. M.]
��ft
. .<
flBSk
<
�I
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Milton considered as a schoolmaster
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Maurice, F.D.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 6 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Lecture delivered at the weekly evening meeting of the Royal Institution of Great Britain on Friday, January 30th, 1857. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Royal Institution of Great Britain
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1857
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5560
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /><br />This work (Milton considered as a schoolmaster), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Conway Tracts
Education
John Milton
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d9f0b3eb1475134183109c7b8cb67f68.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mSEQqNBHbepAC8JZB2G5nh-AWlL3JcOzg4b1hFHrYJ0-L04-Pv-ulRrHzh%7EbVnh2MbfVJoMIONItiXa0bxwhzwZqPoo6fwMN9po8WeqrUR4jO0UkDWXlcgqDMS7jKhhnRAEvDTgHF7C%7EKIBC%7Et4cC5TgRDrelKUT20Z0QbPKuXvTDI0a6CzAaAXv7jWfMSqmz03KTFznp6irjqYC9wL4k8pK9-DfjROvto-wlkSanWYG1Mh9fKKpNARU2prEdnhvIQFHI%7E8DXzdTgGI6V2p8iGZqmOtDTt2ljdQpoZgdOcgrOOQV0p7ANLzxm0F26NGHMduCVs9VlEd39%7EZ%7EDAYfNw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ba0542bbc7e267e04661ff39962f5693
PDF Text
Text
Price One Penny.
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A Hundred Years
of Education
Controversy
JOSEPH
McCABE
AUTHOR OF “THE TRUTH ABOUT SECULAR EDUCATION,*’
ETC., ETC.
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1907
�ZTbe Secular Education ^League,
19, BUCKINGHAM STREET, STRAND, W.C.
Hon. Treasurer: H. S. Leon, Esq., J.P.. Bletchley Park, Bucks.
Secretary: H. Snell.
Bankers: London Joint Stock Bank, Limited.
The Secular Education League has been formed in order to bring
before the country and His Majesty’s Government what is regarded
by a rapidly-increasing number of people as the only permanent,
just, and satisfactory solution of the religious difficulty in national
education—viz., that all State-paid education should be confined to
secular subjects. It aims at binding together in one effective
organisation all who favour the “Secular Solution” of the Educa
tion problem, without reference to any other convictions—political,
social, or religious—that they may entertain.
In view of the Education Bill which is announced for next year,
the Executive Committee and General Council of the League
earnestly invite all who are persuaded of the justice and advisability
of Secular Education to enrol themselves upon its list of members.
The minimum subscription is One Shilling per annum, and it is
important that the League should have the support of all who
adhere to its principles.
The League has already nearly 1,000 members, including, in
addition to many Members of Parliament and well-known public
men, about 250 clergy and ministers of all denominations ; and it
appeals for help to enable it to carry on its work.
PUBLICATIONS DEALING WITH SECULAR EDUCATION.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SECULAR EDUCATION : its History
and Results. By Joseph McCabe. 6d., by post yd.
«
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL: A Question of Ethics. With special
reference to the coming Education Bill. By J. Allanson Picton,
M.A. 6d., by post 8d.
NATIONAL EDUCATION AND THE SECULAR SOLUTION.
By A. M. Scott, id., by post i|d.
SECULAR SCHOOLS.
post 2^d.
By the Rev. S. D. Headlam.
THE CASE FOR SECULAR EDUCATION.
id., by post i|d.
THE INEVITABLE IN EDUCATION.
by post i|d.
2d., by
By H. Snell.
By R. Roberts,
Any of the above publications will be supplied by
Messrs. Watts & Co.
id.,
�2.
KI
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION
CONTROVERSY
The lamentable conflict in regard to religious teaching in
our elementary schools is conceived by many to be an acute
crisis that wise and just statesmanship may presently
remove. Painful as it is to all citizens that the important
work of our schools should, even for a decade, be hampered
so grievously, there is a wide hope that some Minister of
Education will yet adjust the balance between the claims of
the religious bodies, or that their leaders will come to a
prudent compromise. Hence, though there is a growing
inclination to favour the secular solution, large numbers of
people still refuse to look on it as inevitable. Their memory
ranges back, at the most, as far as 1870, and they feel that the
time has not yet come to despair of finding a satisfactory
adjustment of religious claims.
History is the memory of nations. Citizens and states
men are as strictly bound to scan its records in the ordering
of great national issues as they are to consult their personal
experience in the conduct of private affairs. And the
moment one turns to the history of this education controversy
one feels that the hope of finding any stable compromise
sinks perilously close to zero. For one hundred years
the same controversy has raged in England. For one
hundred years the representatives of Anglicanism and
Nonconformity have sought in vain for a satisfactory
adjustment of their claims. For one hundred years educa
tionists and statesmen have been harassed and impeded in
their work by this interminable dispute about religious
education in the schools ; and we are to-day not one inch
nearer to a settlement of it than our grandfathers were in 1807.
This, surely, is a circumstance to be taken into serious
account in the actual controversy about the schools.
3
�4
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Just one hundred years ago, in the year 1807, Mr.
Whitbread, member for Bedford, introduced an educational
measure into the House of Commons. Social writers like
Adam Smith (1776) had long urged that it was the
Government’s duty, and would be to the nation’s advantage,
to set up a national school-system. A prominent clergyman
(Malthus, in 1798) described the condition of things in this
country as “a national disgrace.” Another, Sydney Smithy
at the beginning of the century, declared that “ there was no
Protestant country in the world where the education of the
poor was so grossly and so infamously neglected as in
England.” Three centuries after the Reformation and the
invention of printing only one in twenty of the population
could read and write. There were, of course, schools in the
country. Thousands of grammar schools, poor schools,
dames’ schools, and Sunday schools were in existence; but
their work was ridiculously meagre and ineffective. Mr.
Whitbread’s Bill proposed, therefore, that local authorities
should have power to set up and maintain schools wherever
they were needed.
Into the details of the Bill we need not inquire, as it never
became law. It passed the Commons, but was rejected
contemptuously by the Lords. The Lord Chancellor (Eldon)
and the Archbishop of Canterbury denounced it as a peril to
their respective orders. It was, in fact, openly acknowledged
that the Bill was allowed to pass the Commons only on the
understanding that it would be demolished in the Lords.
It is important to realise that, though there were at that
time other formidable impediments to the education of the
people, the chances of the Bill were imperilled by just the
same controversy that we wage to-day. There was an
aristocratic objection to the education of the workers-—Sir S.
Romilly wrote in his diary that most of the Commoners even
“ thought it expedient that the people should be kept in
ignorance ”—but the chief difficulty was religious. It was
regarded as the thin end of the wedge of secular action, and
was mainly opposed on that account. The Archbishop of
Canterbury denounced it roundly as derogatory to the
authority of the Church.
The truth was that—many will learn with astonishment—
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 5
the same three parties held the educational field in 1807 that
we find waging their endless war in it to-day. The most
powerful party, the Churchmen, claimed full denominational
teaching in the schools; the Nonconformists and many
neutral politicians thought—precisely as their grandchildren
think—that simple Bible lessons were the ideal ; and the
followers of Adam Smith (men like Robert Owen, a great
educationist) pleaded for purely secular instruction. It was
a golden age of educational reformers, though England was
in so backward a condition. Rousseau, Froebel, Pestalozzi,
and Herbart had stirred Europe with their ideas. In
Manchester a little group of social students, including
Coleridge and the great chemist Dalton, discussed them.
One of the group was the Quaker Joseph Lancaster, a man of
deep religious and philanthropic feeling. He founded a
system of elementary schools for the poor (known after 1814
as “The British and Foreign School Society”), and when,
says Mr. Holman, the wealthy found that “ children could be
taught next to nothing for next to nothing,” he secured
considerable support. Another of the Manchester group,
Robert Owen, set up in Scotland a large school on purely
secular principles, and it soon became one of the wonders of
Europe. Foreign Governments sent officials to study it.
The father of Queen Victoria was one of its greatest admirers.
Thus undenominationalists and secular educationists were
both in the field by 1804 ; and the third party quickly made
its appearance. A Mrs. Trimmer discovered—as so many
Mrs. Trimmers do in our day—that the Lancastrian schools
were heretical, and she induced an Anglican clergyman,
Dr. Bell, to take the field with a scheme of denominational
schools in 1805. Churchmen gathered at once under the
new banner, while the Nonconformists rallied round
Lancaster ; and the country, just one hundred years ago, was
ringing with what flippant writers called “ the conflict of Bel(l)
and the Dragon,” or what the historian must call the first
act in the drama (or tragedy) of our educational controversy.
Two generations have passed away, but the same battle rages
round our schools, the same war-cries resound, the same
plausible suggestions are thrust on us, and there is the same
utter lack of any means of compromise ; except that now we
�6
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
have the plain experience of a hundred years to teach us how
impossible all idea of compromise is.
The succeeding acts in the drama are in substance but a
repetition of the first. The scene changes marvellously as
the last traces of feudalism are swept away : the actors pass
behind the wings, and new ones come on. But the issue
remains the same, and the obstacles remain. The limits of
this essay would not suffice to set out the whole story in
detail, and I must be content to dwell on a few of the chief
stages of it. The struggle between the Denominationalists
and Undenominationalists was carried on vigorously and
unceasingly.
In 1811 Dr. Bell’s supporters founded the
“ National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor
in the Doctrines of the Established Church,” in opposition to
the “ Royal Lancastrian Institution ” (which became the
“British and Foreign Schools Society ” in 1814). In both
cases the instruction given was of the poorest conceivable
type. Dr. Bell recommended a barn as a good structure for a
school, and insisted that the children of the workers should
not be taught “ beyond their station.” In both sets of schools
the monitorial system (the teaching of children by children), a
pernicious system, was adopted. They fell incalculably short
of Owen’s splendid school at New Lanark, where one found
the finest methods then known and a curriculum of equal
breadth to that of the modern Council school. By the year
1818 there was still only one in seventeen of the population
of England in school, and the coarseness and viciousness of
the peasantry and factory-workers were terrible.
At this point Lord Brougham (then Mr. Brougham) and
other politicians took up the cause of national education once
more. There had been a State system of schools in Prussia
since 1794, in Holland since 1814, and in France since the
rule of Napoleon. In the American States education was far
advanced, and we had ourselves set up an excellent system
in Scotland in 1803, and voted £23,000 for the Protestant
schools in Ireland in the very year that Whitbread’s Bill was
rejected. The condition of the country was scandalous, and
men like Brougham pleaded that it was time wealthy
England did something to remove the gross illiteracy of its
people. In 1816 Brougham secured an inquiry into the
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 7
educational state of London. In the comparatively small
London of that time it was found that 120,000 children had no
schooling- whatever. They played in the streets—streets and
courts of a foulness inconceivable to us to-day, for London
and Paris were, until fifty years ago, inferior to ancient Rome
or Babylon in sanitation—until their ninth year, and then
they entered the army of illiterate workers, with stunted
minds. Brougham then, in 1818, had a Select Committee
appointed to deal with educational charities. He had a
shrewd idea that, if these endowments were equitably and
economically managed, we could set up a system of schools
without calling on the national Exchequer.
How that scheme was defeated, and educational endow
ments are to this day diverted from that instruction of the
poor for which they were intended, it is not within the limits
of this essay to consider. But in 1820 Brougham introduced
a general educational measure into Parliament, and this was
wrecked on the rock of the religious difficulty. In view of
the imperfect municipal life of the time the proposals of the
Bill were not without merit. The magistrates and the local
clergy were to act in conjunction in building schools
wherever they were needed, and the funds were to come partly
from local, partly from national resources. It was a fair begin
ning of a national scheme. But Brougham soon found that one
yawning gulf lay across the line of progress, after all scruples
about national economy and the danger of educating the
workers had been removed. This was the now familiar
pitfail of compromise as to religious instruction. Brougham
met the Churchmen by giving the Anglican minister almost
absolute control over the schoolmaster. He could fix his
salary, arrange or modify his secular curriculum, and
examine the poor teacher when he willed. But Brougham
sought then to conciliate the Nonconformists by excluding all
denominational teaching from the curriculum. Simple Bible
lessons, the ever-ancient and ever-new device, were expected
to satisfy all the sects, and the Lord’s Prayer was the only
element of ritual to be admitted. For the sequel we have
only to recall our recent experience, and remember that
history repeats itself. Neither religious party was satisfied ;
neither would abate its claims to any practicable extent. The
�8
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Bill had to be withdrawn, and for another thirteen years we
continued to bear what Malthus had called our “ national
disgrace ” because our clergy could not find a compromise in
regard to their conflicting claims.
I do not mean that the disgrace was removed in 1833, but
that year witnessed the first modest beginning of national
action in regard to the schools. It will be remembered that
1832 had seen the passing of the great Reform Bill. Enor
mous expectations had been aroused in the workers of the
country, and it was under pressure of a more or less serious
danger of civil war that Parliament was at length reformed
and the franchise extended. The whole hope of social
reform in the country now centred on the reformed House of
Commons, but the hope was quickly converted into disap
pointment as far as education was concerned. Under pressure
of Mr. Roebuck and others, Lord John Russell was induced
in 1833 to Pass an annual grant for educational purposes of
,£20,000. In that same year the small State of Prussia granted
.£600,000 for its schools. But the niggardliness of the grant
was not the worst feature. Dreading the religious feeling in
the country, the Government decided to hand over the money
each year to the two rival societies of voluntary schools. Not
only did the Journal of Education warmly protest at the time,
but experts are now agreed that this distribution utterly
prevented any increase of educational work and augmented
religious rivalry. As the grant was given on a basis of
funds already provided by the societies, the more wealthy
Church-society got the lion’s share. Of £600,000 granted in
the next seventeen years, the Church schools got £475,000.
A body of educational reformers had by this time formed
themselves into a Central Society of Education, and pressed
unceasingly for national action. But the Bishop of London
and other prelates denounced the Society, and for six years
more thwarted its action. By the year 1839 more than half
the children of the country were still utterly illiterate, and the
majority of the remainder received only a pretence of educa
tion. Dean Alford was moved to write in that year : “ There
is no record of any people on earth so highly civilised, so
abounding in arts and comforts, and so grossly and generally
ignorant, as the English.” There was, indeed, a minority of
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 9
liberal and distinguished Anglican clergy who deplored the
situation—men like Whately, Hook, Stanley, and Kingsley;
but the overwhelming majority of the clergy of all sects
were obstinate in their respective claims. A few words on
the situation at this date (1839) from the two leading
historians of the subject will make it clear that I do not
exaggerate the injury done to education by the religious
controversy. Mr. Holman says, in his English National
Education (in the “Victorian Era Series”) : “This continued
impotence of Parliament to provide a national remedy for
what every single member of both Houses admitted to be a
national disgrace and danger is probably one of the most
striking features in the whole of its history. The only thing
that kept the Government from making the mass of the
people human was the determination of some to keep them
from being made anything less than divine.” And the only
other English writer of distinction on English education in
the nineteenth century, Mr. Adams, says: “The interdict
against a united and national system came from the moral
teachers of the people, and was pronounced necessary in
the interests of religion.” Even liberal Churchmen like
F. D. Maurice would admit no compromise. Any children,
he said, ought to be admitted to the Church schools (now
receiving ,£20,000 a year from national funds), but they must
submit to Church teaching.
Two observations on the situation at this period are not
without interest in view of our actual controversy. In the
first place, we must note that it is the very sincerity and
devotedness to their doctrines of the clergy that raised the
most formidable obstacle to the progress of education. How
ever much one may dissent from their doctrines and differ
from their estimate of the value to mankind of those doctrines,
one may respect their zeal in the interest of what they deem
to be of great importance. In the earlier years of the educa
tion controversy one can understand how they could lose
sight of the general civic interest under the stress of their
religious zeal. But it is surely time that their modern
successors realised the error of thus mixing up civic and
ecclesiastical ideals. We look back on a stretch of history in
which that mixture has wrought terrible mischief to the civic
�IO
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
ideal. The interminable wrangle has shown us that no
satisfactory adjustment of their conflicting claims is possible ;
and that the civic interest must be studied on a purely civic
basis, and the religious interest confined to religious teachers
in the religious atmosphere of the church or chapel.
The second observation I would make is that there has
been a remarkable change since those days in the character of
the instruction given in elementary schools. Some politi
cians still speak of the “ religious atmosphere ” in the
denominational school, and maintain that it is not a mere
question whether we shall transfer a few religious lessons
from the school to the church. The use of this phrase is very
largely an empty tradition of the earlier school. Up to the
middle of the century the whole curriculum was pervaded
with religious ideas. When we listen to-day to the claim
that the Anglican or Roman Catholic school has a general
permeation of religious feeling, we wonder how it is possible
to find this religious atmosphere in the long hours that are
filled with lessons on arithmetic, geography, grammar, and
such subjects. There is, of course, no religious element
whatever in these lessons to-day (and they form four-fifths of
the whole curriculum of the denominational school),1 but
there was fifty and more years ago. Manuals of arithmetic
and geography are still to be found that show a real
“ religious atmosphere,” and Mr. Holman gives many details
in his interesting history. Arithmetical problems were
founded largely on the Old Testament, and geography
centred on Palestine much as a medieval map would have
done. Now that these lessons have become purely secular,
and religious instruction is confined to a few prayers and
hymns and half-hour lessons, no very great change will be
involved in transferring them to the proper home of religious
cultivation.
However, let us return to the historical study. Statistics
showed that whereas in Prussia one in six of the population
attended school, in Switzerland one in seven, and in Holland
one in nine, in wealthy England the proportion was one in
1 The present writer was educated in a denominational school, was after
wards co-manager of a denominational school, and later rector of a denomina
tional college.
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY n
fourteen. Clearly the voluntary societies were not dis
charging-the function of educating the nation. Educationists
redoubled their pressure. They obtained an increase of the
annual grant from ,£20,000 to £"30,000—not a formidable
matter, Brougham pleasantly observed to the Lords, seeing
that they were that year voting £70,000 for the building of
royal stables—and they at last secured a beginning of
governmental action in the work of education. One of the
most pressing needs in the country was for the efficient
training of the teachers. Even in the Lancastrian body six
months’ training was thought amply sufficient for an
elementary-school teacher. Indeed, what was given in the
great bulk of the schools of the country would not be admitted
by any modern expert to be “ education ” at all in any real
sense. The teachers were miserably inefficient; and when
we learn that their average income was only about £22 a
year we can imagine what type of people they were. The
Government therefore proposed to set up a Normal School
(training college) at Kneller Hall.
They were at once
confronted by the religious difficulty, and their scheme
foundered once more on it. They proposed to pay only the
teachers of secular subjects in the training college, and leave
the students of each denomination free to bring in ministers
of their respective bodies for religious lessons. Once more
the conflicting interests of the Churches wrecked the scheme,
and it was years before there was any effective training of
teachers in the country.
But Lord John Russell triumphed over clerical opposition
in one important respect, and made a beginning of national
action. He formed a Committee of the Privy Council on
Education, and this slender institution was destined to grow
in time into our modern Education Department. But what
storms of religious opposition it had to face in its early
months I The Bishops of London and Chichester led the
vast majority of the clergy in a violent assault upon this
intrusion, as they called it, of the State on the Church’s
domain. There were Churchmen, like the Bishop of Durham,
who saw how gravely national interests were being thwarted,
and were willing to compromise. But the vast majority of
the clergy were vehemently opposed to State action.
�12 A HUNDRED
YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Nonconformists proclaimed the new Committee to be “a
secular tyranny, ” while Churchmen denounced it as a menace
to the Establishment. The religious war of 1906 was tame
ness itself compared to the war on the new education
authority, slight as it was, in 1839. The bishops and the
lords temporal actually walked in procession from the House
to Buckingham Palace—a unique incident, I think, in the
annals of that dignified body—and begged Queen Victoria to
abolish the Committee. The young Queen answered them
with a truer dignity than their own. She told them that she
had sanctioned the Government’s proposals from a deep and
well-considered sense of duty to her people, and the Lords
went away disappointed.
The controversy went on for some time with great vigour,
and in fact it was only moderated by another of those fatal
concessions to the clergy that hindered the real progress of
education. By a more or less secret arrangement the
Anglican clergy were granted control over the inspectors of
schools who were appointed under the new authority. It was
an abdication of its functions that would be listened to with
amazement if it were proposed in our time, and it was an
unjust arrangement. The religious lessons given in the
(undenominational) schools of the British and Foreign
Society were controlled by Church inspectors, and the
irritation and rivalry were greatly increased. The new
Committee fell so far under the dictation of the archbishops
that in 1840 it passed a minute directing that “ their lordships
were of opinion that no plan of education ought to be
encouraged in which intellectual instruction was not subor
dinated to the regulation of the thoughts and habits of the
children by the doctrines and precepts of revealed religion.”
This unjust preponderance stirred the Nonconformists to
continuous action, while expert educationists tell us that
elementary education steadily deteriorated. The passing of
the Factory Acts was supposed to have secured some measure
of instruction for the children of the factory-workers. In
point of fact the Act was flagrantly scouted. Children of
tender years were still worked for twelve hours a day, and
the education provided for them was farcical. The lodge
keeper, or the stoker’s wife, would gather them in some dark
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 13
shed—often in the coal-house—and laboriously teach them to
identify the letters of the alphabet. The country was over
run with poor widows, crippled workers, and all kinds of
impoverished people who earned a few shillings a week
by “teaching.” The Central Education Society fought
desperately for some improvement, and in 1843 two important
efforts were made. Both were wrecked on the perennial
religious difficulty. The first was a Bill for the effective
instruction of factory children. They were very largely of
Nonconformist parentage, yet the Bill unluckily gave higher
control to the Anglicans—who had wrecked every measure
that did not do so—and the Dissenters naturally resented it.
They had now become sufficiently powerful to oppose such
measures with effect, and they forced the withdrawal of the
Bill. This triumph brought home to them the fact that the
extension of the franchise had enormously increased their
political power, and this deepened the long political struggle
over the schools, and added the further complication of our civic
and political life with the conflicting and irreconcilable claims
of the clergy. The situation became worse than ever. Let
me express it impersonally in the estimate given by Mr.
Holman, the impartial historian of the subject.
The
Dissenters, he says, “ now fought for their own hand in the
same way as the Church party did, and combined with the
latter and others to resist the exercise of control by the State
authorities ; and thus they became real obstructionists to
national progress in education.” The Congregationalists
alone deserve a partial exemption from this heavy censure.
They at least refused to accept State aid, and enjoined their
members to support their own denominational schools. The
Roman Catholics were in the same logical position until a
few years ago.
The second effort of the reformers in 1843 was to introduce
a Bill, in the name of Mr. Joseph Hume, for purely secular
and moral education, but it was counted out. The reformers,
however, manfully continued their work, and gradually won
some of the great Dissenters to their view. In 1847 they
founded in Lancashire—always honourably placed in the
history of education—a league for the furtherance of their
aims. The famous Corn-law orators, Cobden and John
�i4
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Bright, lent their support to it. The radicals of the south
joined forces with it, and it gradually attained considerable
power. From a “Lancashire Association” it became a
National Public Schools Association.” There seemed a
prospect at last of convincing the country of the impractica
bility of balancing religious claims in regard to the
elementary schools, and rescuing the instruction of the
people from this harassing association with theology.
In 1850 the League decided to test their strength. The
minister of South Place (London) Chapel, Mr. W. J. Fox, a
brilliant speaker on social reforms and member of Parliament
for Oldham, introduced a comprehensive measure into the
House. The inspectors were to report on the deficiency of
schools in particular districts, and an efficient provision for
universal education was to be made out of the local rates.
Denominational schools were not to be superseded, but would
in future only be paid for the secular instruction they
imparted. On the other hand, the new Government schools,
which were to give free education, should be controlled in
the matter of giving or omitting undenominational instruction
by a kind of local option. The Bill projected a vast advance
in the field of elementary education, but it was resented by
both religious parties, and was heavily defeated on the
second reading. The National Association—supported as it
was by Dissenters like Cobden, Fox, Milner Gibson, and
W. E. Forster—was fiercely attacked, and denounced as
irreligious. They had put before the country, members said
in the House, a choice between Heaven or Hell, God or the
Devil. So for the sixth time a fair and promising scheme of
national improvement was shattered on the rock of the
religious difficulty.
The various acts in the drama of our educational history
are, in fact, so similar in essence, so closely parallel to the
act we are taking part in to-day, that one moves rapidly on to
the end of the century. Education remained in a state of
partial paralysis. Mr. Fox had read to the House a manifesto
issued by a large body of London working men, in which
they complained pathetically of this paralysis. It concluded :
“ The controversy has waxed hotter and more furious; our little
ones have been forgotten in the fray, and their golden moments
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 15
have been allowed to run irrevocably to waste.” It needs
little reflection to convince one that this was no exaggeration.
The member of schools in England at the time is no test
whatever of the educational work done. The vast majority
were ridiculously inefficient. Teachers were given an absurd
modicum of training, and inspectors were given no training
whatever until 1857. The greater part of the machinery was
rusty and antiquated, and the salaries were too slender to
attract competent men. Anyone who reads Mr. Kay’s
comparison of England with the continental countries in
1850 will be amazed at the appalling statements of this great
expert. As late as i860 it was stated in a Government
report that out of the two and a-half million children in the
country only one and a-half million were at school ; and of
these 800,000 were found in flagrantly inefficient schools,
under teachers who themselves reached no decent standard of
education. London was far below the level of any large
Roman town of fifteen centuries earlier. In fact, few children
of the Roman towns had been without elementary education.
Yet every measure for the betterment of the situation was
met with the same resistance. Mr. Forster’s Bill for the
education of the poor was rejected in 1867, and the storm
that raged about his great Bill of 1870, when the Board
schools were founded, is too well known to enlarge upon.
Forster found that two-fifths of our children between the
ages of six and ten, and one-third between the ages of ten
and twelve, had no education whatever ; that, in other words,
one and a-half million of our children were still untouched
by the influence of the teacher, such as it was. No wonder
that he wrote bitterly to Kingsley : “ I wish parsons, Church
and other, would all remember as much as you do that
children are growing into savages while they are trying to
prevent one another from helping.”
The rest of the story needs no telling. The familiar
device of giving “ simple Bible lessons ” was again dignified
with the position of a great political expedient, and thirty
seven years of hard experience have again proved its futility.
Surely it is time that we all, clergy and laity, recognised this
plain fact of its uselessness ? Mr. Birrell rightly disavowed
any claim to originality in bringing it forward in 1906. It
�16
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
goes back to the time of his grandfather. It was CowperTempleism in 1870. It was Russellism in 1850, and
Durhamism in 1840, and Broughamism in 1820, and
Lancasterism in 1807. If is discredited by as prolonged and
explicit a political experience as was ever given to a
suggested compromise. It is as bitterly and powerfully
assailed to-day as it was in 1807. As long as it is retained,
it holds out a prospect of fresh wrangling with every swing of
the political pendulum.
The object of this essay is to inform those who fancy
that the giving of “simple Bible lessons” is a new
and imperfectly-tried device how completely it has
proved its impotence. And no other compromise is even
proposed to us. Happily the lesson is being read more
candidly to-day. The modern Secular Education League
has the support of distinguished Roman Catholics and many
clergy of the Anglican and Dissenting Churches. They
believe that they can sufficiently tend their religious interests
in their chapels, and they plead that we no longer hamper
our highest civic ideals and embarrass our political issues with
religious differences. We cannot call back on to our planet
the millions who have passed through England in the
nineteenth century without ever having their finer powers
developed ; the millions who have gone down into the
darkness with stunted souls, after a life of heavy drudgery
and the coarsest surroundings. But we can unite in the
framing of a unified and thoroughly effective system for
training the body, mind, and character of the child, and
we may leave the clergy to give the training in their own
doctrines in their own institutions.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A hundred years of education controversy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McCabe, Joseph [1867-1955]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Advertisement for the Secular Education League and its publications (published by Watts), inside front cover, i.e. p.[2].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1906
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N447
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A hundred years of education controversy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Education
NSS
Religious Education-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c5d0d3e0056c4680a16583a872f05327.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tNjl5NJh0jcYmmBdzo4txEndZZlMp7aj3-pMCRKVnCs8ymyrPqCLWOUf77AA5fJNQHFnyKZNFTKYD5pFKRooLU6KLERhpMh93KfPoP3gilazG8mm484ZAWnLIP9u1OS6eEGGLilDalDw2KBI5qcKPOPrbB0O2w4n51nq1%7EkFg2efBJjkDkeCxdMquwnWRG4bUL96oskonyTpbHALUqtqXbcJPYwN0Xlnzgxc2BM5btKazICAJpHceC7fzFljL3FHnTSy9pL4mUpffHmqnhQLWVl4MzcrtTbClaYFVO1I0EbQRc8IP2BhnKBririUnt2uPmsC0FUCiASbAgKhlb87dg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
29c1e821c233ee65078c4847d52f4b14
PDF Text
Text
V E R B A TI Al R E 1'0 RT
OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF A
DEPUTATIOA
THE RIGHT HON. AV. E. GLADSTONE, ALP.,
(First Lord of the Treasury,)
THE RIGHT HON. EARL DE GREY AND RIPON,
(Lord President of the Council,) (hid
THE RIGHT HON. AV. E. FORSTER, ALP.,
(Vice-President of the Council,)
ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1870.
BIRMINGHAM.
PRINTED FOR THE NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Offices:—No. 47, Ann Street.
�4
resolutions to Mr. Gladstone, with a view of impressing upon the
Government the objections entertained by the League to the Bill.
In accordance with this resolution, a request was addressed to
Mr. Gladstone, asking him to receive a Deputation. The right
bon. gentleman consented to do so, and appointed Tuesday, the
Dtli of March, to receive the Deputation, at his official residence in
Downing Street.
Arrangements were consequently made for the representation of
the 'Branches of the League on the Deputation, and on the day
above named the following Members of Parliament, the Executive
Committee, the Officers of the League, and the undermentioned
Delegates from the Branches, met at the Westminster Palace
Hotel, and proceeded thence to the Prime Minister’s official residence
in Downing Street, where they were received by Mr. Gladstone,
who was accompained by Lord de Grey and Mr. Forster:—
Anstnrther, Sir IL, M.P.
Armitstead, G., M.P.
Carter, R. N., M.P.
Cowen, J., M.P.
Beaumont, II. F., M.P.
Brogden, A., M.P.
Bright, Jacob, M.P.
Dalrymple, Donald, M.P.
Dilke, Sir C. 3V., Bart., M.P.
Dixon, George, M.P.
Eykyn, Roger, M.P.
Fawcett, Henry, M.P.
Forster, C'has., M.P.
Harcourt, Vernon, 31. .
Herbert, Hon. A., M.P.
Hoare, Sir H. A., M.P.
Howard, James, M.P.
Illingworth, Alfred, M.P.
Johnson, Andren, M.P.
Kirk, William, M.P.
Lawson, Sir Wilfred, M.P.
Leatliam, E. A., M.P.
Lewis, J. D., M.P.
Lush, J. A., M.P.
Melly, George, M.P.
Miall, E., M.P.
Parry, Love Jones, M. P.
Philips, R. N., M.P.
Potter, E., M.P.
Rylands, Peter, M.P.
Samuelson, B., M.P.
Samuelson, H., M.P.
Simon, 31 r. Serjeant, M.P.
Shaw, IL, M.P.
Sartoris, E. J., M.P.
Sherriff, A. C., M.P.
Stepney, Colonel, M.P.
Stevenson, J. C., 31. P.
Sykes, Colonel, 31. P.
Taylor, P. A., 31.P.
Villiers, Right Hon. C. P., M.P.
AVedderburn, David, 31. P.
AVlialley, 31r., M.P.
White, James, 31. P.
AVhitworth, Thos., 31. P.
Weguelin, T. 31., M.T.
�5
DELEGATES FROM THE BRANCHES.
Ashton-under-Lyne—
Green, Thomas, M.A.
BathDalrymple, D., M.P.
Edwards, R. P.
Maenaught/Rev. J., M.A.
Mureh, Aiderman Jerom, J.P.
Banbury—
Tin* Worshipful the Mayor
Brookes, R. H.
Carter, Rev. L. G.
Griftin, Dr., J.P.
Turner, Rev. J.
BedfordHill, Rowland
Ransom, Edwin
Belper—
\
Cox, J. Charles, J.P.
Birkenhead—
Billson, Alfred
Cooke, Bancroft
Cowie, Alfred
Stitt, Samuel
Birmingham—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(Thomas Prime, Esq.)
Dixon, George, M.P.
Bunce, J. Thackray, E.S.S.
Brown, Rev. J. J.
Chamberlain, Councillor Joseph
Collings, Councillor Jesse
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.R.L.S.
Dawson, George, M.A.
Field, Alfred
Hadley, Felix
Harris, Councillor William
Hayes, E. J.
Jaffray, John, J.P.
Lloyd, Councillor G. B.
Martineau, R. F.
Middlemore, Win. J.P.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S.
Philli] is, Aiderman, J.P.
Timmins, Samuel, F.R.S.L.
Vince, Rev. Charles
Wright, J. S.
All Saints’ Ward—
Pay ton, Henry
Rolason, Councillor
B 3
Birmingham (Continued)—
Deritend Ward—
Eliaway, H. H.
Griffiths, Thomas
Hawkes, W. C.
Dviideston Ward—Ingall, George
Hampton Ward—■
Barratt, Dr. A.
Biddle, J.
Mills, W.
St. Martin’s Ward—
Bennett, W. P.
Gosling, Wm.
St. Pavi/s Ward—
Edwards, Mr. Councillor C. H.
Manton, Mr. Alderman
St. Peter’s Ward—
Adams, Francis
Deykin, Councillor
Gosling, Alfred
Whitlock, H. J.
Sr. Thomas’ Ward—
•
Baker, George
Mann, Robert
Brown, Charles
Bai.sall Heath—
Holland, Aiderman
Flint Glass Makers’ Associa
tion (T. J. Wilkinson, &'.'.)
Bolton
Lee, Henry
Winkworth, Stephen
BradfordHolden, (’ouneillor Angus
Illingworth, Alfred, M.P.
Brighton—
Burrows, J. C., J.P.
Creak, A., M.A.
Clark, A., B.A.
Davey, Councillor
Mackenzie, W.
Pettitt, W.
Tapper, Rev. Dr.
Wood, Councillor
White, James, M.P.
�c
Bristol—
Darwen-
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A.
Gotch, Rev. F. W., LL.I>.
James, Rev. W.
Pease, Tlios.
Thomas, Herbert, J.P.
Baron, Joshua, J.P.
Dunmock, James
McDougall, Rev. James
DenbighWright, Robert
Bromsgrove—
Derby—
Macdonald, A.
Seroxton, Mr.
Beswick, G.
Brown, William
Renals, Aiderman J.
Burslem—
Devonport
Woodall, Wm.
The Worshipful the Mayor
(J. Rolston, Esq.,'M. DA
Lewis, Mr., M.P.
Bawling, S. B.
BuryPhilips, R. N., M.P.
Canterbury—
Dewsbury—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(Henry Hart, Esq.)
Brent, Aiderman
• ’ooper, John R.
Cromwell, Rev. Dr.
Hamilton, R.
Joyce, James
Peirce, J. H.
Clarke, John
Kilner, William
Dukinfleld Bucklev, N.
Marshall, William
Dudley—
Cochrane, Aiderman, J.P.
Robinson, Rev. Wade
CarlislePotter, E. Esq., M,P.
Howard, Hon. George
Sutton, William
Edgbaston—
Kenrick, Timothy, J.P.
Carmarthen
Exeter—
Sartoris, E. J., M.P.
Stepney, Colonel, M.P.
Bowring, Sir John
Norrington ('ouncillor
Carnarvon—
Falmouth—
Evans, Rev. E.
Fox, Howard. J.P.
M illmore, Arthur
Cheltenham—
Halifax
Onley, Samuel
Bubb, J.
Hutchinson, Alderman, J. D., J.P.
Shaw, Aiderman, J.P.
Scarbrough, T. S.
Chesham—
Carr, Rev. John
Cave, James
Hawkes, C.
Plato, C.
Rose, D.
Rose, G.
ChesterBeckett, Joseph
Parish, W.. ex-Sheriff
CoventryBray, Charles
Cash, Councillor John
Handsworth—
Ann, Rev. Robert
Harborne—
Newey, C. J.
! Hastings—
I
Banks, John
Hinckley Atkins, John
Atkins, Thomas
Burrows, Rev. Mr.
Davis, Samuel
Perkins, Rev. Mr.
�Huddersfield—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Dodds, John
.Mellor, Wright, J.P.
Skilliek, R.
Huntingdon—
Millard, Rev. J. IL, B.A.
Hyde—
Adamson, Daniel
Dowson, Rev. H. E., B.A.
Hibbert, Edward
Hibbert, John
Robinson, Rev. T., B.A.
Herefordspem-er, Philip Russell
IpSWichJones, Rev. E.
Maude, Rev. F. H.
Notcutt, S. A., jun.
Rees, Ml’.
Zincke, Rev. F. Barham, M.A.
Kendal—
Busher, Edward
Russell, Rev. John
Swinglehurst, Henry
Thompson, William
Leeds—
The. Worshipful the Mayor
(W. G. Joy, Esq.)
Barran, Aiderman
Clarke, F. R.
Crowther, William, J.P.
Lupton, Joseph
LeicesterTim Worshipful the Mayor
(G. Stevenson, Esq.)
Coe, Rev. C. C.
Harley, Rev. Robert, F.R.S.
Hodges, T. W., J.P.
Paget, T. T., High Sheriff
Walker, William Henry
LondonAllan, William
Alder, T. P.
Applegarth, R.,
Atkinson, Rowland
Beales, Edmond, M.A.,
Bennett, W. C., LL.D.
Botlv, William
Bovill, W. J.
Brenehley, Julius
B 4
London (continued )—
Buekmaster, T. C.
Chunrock, E. J., M.A.
Church, R. H.
Clayden, Rev. P. W.
Courtenay, J. 1.
Cremer, W. R.
Crompton, Henry
Cunnington, John
Dilke, Sir C. W.. Bart., M.P.
Dodds, George Will.,
Edwards, J. P.
Emerson, F. R.
Evans, Howard
Fooks, W. C., jun., LL.B.
Fry, Herbert
Goodwin, Rev. Dr.
Galpin, T. 1).
Guile, Daniel
Hill, A. H.
Hoare, Sir H. A., Bart., M.P.
Hole, James
Holyoake, G. J.
Hoppus, John, LL.D., F.R.S.
Howell, George
Herbert, Hon. A., M,P.
Hodgson, Dr.
Hansard Rev. S.
Hales, John
lerson, Rev. IL, B.A.
Jones, Lloyd
Levi, Professor, Leone
Lushington, G.
Mackay, C., LL.D.
Middlemore, J. T.
Miall, E., M.P.
McClelland, Janies
Moore, S. P., LL.B.
Motterslmad, T.
Nasmith, I)., LL.B.
Odger, George
Pare, William, F.S.S.
Parry, L. J., M.P.
Payne, J.
Pennington, Frederick
Price, Richard
Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, C.B.
Robson, John, B.A.
Robertson, Professor C.
Russell, R.
Sliaen, William
Shortt, John, LL.B.
Slack, H. J.
Stanesby, H. J.
Somes, George
Taylor, P. A., M.P.
Varley, C.
�8
London (eoìithiucd)—
Webster, Thomas, Q.C.
Williams, Robert
Worley, A. E.
Bloomsbury—
Johnson, E.
Miller, Rev. AV.
Young, Sir George, Bart.
Camden—
Bottomley, J. F.
Shoveller, John
Chelsea—
Armstrong, IT. Stephen
Beales, Edmond, M.A.
Boyd, John
Davis, .Mr.
Finch, AV. Newton
Jet! lies, John
Jones, P.
Liggett, Mr.
Pite, H. G.
Sellis, Win.
Symes, Chas.
Deptford—
Smiles, R.
Matthews, A.
Greenwich—
Bell, John, M.A.
Bennett, AV. C., LL.D.
Goodwin, Rev. Thomas, LL.D.
Hackney—
Aspland, Dr.
< Tennell, Air.
Fretwell, J., jun.
Green, C. E.
Aliali, Rev. William
Hiding, B. S.
Pieton, Rev. J. A., ALA.
Kensington—
Gladstone, Dr. J. IL, F.R.S.
Heywood, James, ALA., F.R.S.
Lobley, J. Logan, F.G.S.
AleClelland, Jas., J.P., F.R.A.S.
Osborne, John
Reade, Rev. C. Darby
Lambeth—
Alder, T. P.
Emblin, R.
Greenstreet, T.
Gibbons, G.
Hearson, Rev. G.
Mottershead, T.
Sayer, AV.
I London (continued}—
Stainsby, D.
Silvester, H. R.
Taylor, S. S.
Wèrley, A. E. T.
Marylebone—
Guedalla, J.
Pratt, Alagee
North London—
Bartram, Richard
Clarke, T. C.
Geikie, Rev. C.
Glover, R. R.
Hooper, AV. B.,
Hickson, G.
Lueraft, B.
Freedy, A.
Preston, J. T.
Sinclair, R.
Spicer, Henry, jun., B.A.
Tit ford, A.
AVade, J. M.
AVright, G. W.
AVilson, George
Peckham—
Yeats, Dr.
Westminster—
Beal, James
Carr, J. T.
Courtney, G. J.
Ely, Air.
McDonald, C.F.
Alilligan, Air. '
Noble, John
Tufnell, Air.
West Ham—
Johnson, A., ALP.
Godlee, L.
Woolwich, Plumstead, and
Charlton—
Noble, John
Pike, Rev. J. B.
Richards, Rev. J.
Wates, Joseph
AVliite, George
Lichfield—
< hawner, R. C.
< ïosskey, Rowland, ex-Mayor
Al<• Lean, J. C.
Liverpool—
Frange, Councillor F. G.
Sinclair, Air.
Thomas, John
�9
Manchester—Bazley, C. H. J.P.
Alathews, Rev. E., M.A.
Rumney, Alderman
Steinthal, Rev. S. A.
Middlesborough—
Jones, John
Williams, E.
(Rover, R. R.
N ewcastle-on-Tyne—
( 'owen, J., M.P.
Cowen, J., jun.
Hengel], Win. M.
Rutherford, Dr.
Street, Rev. J. C.
Newport—(Isle of Wight)
< 'olman, Alfred
Pierce, John
Norwich-
Cooper, R. A.
NorthamptonHarris, Henry
North ShieldsHudson, Thomas
N ottingham—
Cox, Sami.
Ellis, Edward John
Eelkin, William, F.L.S.
Felkin, Fredk.
Clipper, Edward
Hollins, Mr.
Paget, Charles, J.P.
Rothera, G. B.
Oldbury—
Jubb, Rev. W. W.
Stableford, W.
Wheeler, John
OxfordHarcourt, Vernon, M.P.
Peterboro’
Taylor, Benjamin
Plymouth—
Anthonv, Rev. F. E., M.A.
Collier, W. F.
Reading—
'Elie Worshipful the Mayor
(T. Spokes, Esq.)
Culpin, Thos.
Stevenson, Rev. F.
Rochester—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Aveling, Thos., ex-Mayor
Aveling, Dr.
Belsev, J.
Belsey, F. F.
Boon, James
Bullbrook, Councillor
Coles, Aiderman
Edwards, Mr.
Fond, J. R.
Hanhain, C. F.
Jellie, Rev. W. H.
Knighton, Dr.
Naylor, Aiderman
Steele, Dr.
Warne, T. S.
Wyles, Thomas
SalisburyJones, Rev. W.
Short. Geo., B.A.
Williams, Charles
Sheffield—
Allott, Councillor
Beal, Councillor
Bragge, William, F.R.G.S.
Drontield, Mr.
Griliitlis, Dr.
Knox, G. Walter, B.Se.
Short, Rev. J. Lettis
Shrewsbury—
Stephens, R.
Southampton—
Maxse, Captain, R.N.
South ShieldsCowen, .Josh., jun.
Edgar, John
Stafford—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Stockport—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Black, Rev. James, M.A.
Coppock, Major
Howard, Alderman
The Town Clerk
Walthew, Aiderman
Stourbridge—
Maginnis, Rev. D.
StroudCooper, Wm.
�10
Tipton—
Blackburn, Rev. F. <'.
Tynemouth
Hudson, T.
Walsall—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(AV. B. Duignan, Esq.)
Cotterell, G.
Holden, E. T.
Warrington—
'file Worshipful the Mayor
(C. J. Holmes, Esq.)
Long, William, jun.
Milner, Edward
Rylands, Peter, M.P.
West Bromwich
Jukes, .1. G.
Kerni< k, J. Arthur, J.P.
West Kent—
Bird, G.
Bedell, Mr.
Coombs, Rev. J. Wilson, B.A.
Howard, James, M.P.
Miall, Edward, M.P.
Offor, George
< )utram, G. E.
Thomjison, C. W.
Todd, AV.
Whitehead, James
Winchfield Kingsley, Rev. Canon
Wolverhampton—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(Thomas Bantock, Esq.
Eelkin, Robert
Glittery, Rev. Thomas
Horton, Rev. Tlios. G.
Hatton, William
Loveridge, H.
Mander, S. S.
’Walton, Frederick
Wiguelin, T. W., M.P.
Worcester—
Airev, J. F.
MacLean, Councillor
Sherritf, A.
M.P.
Woodward, Francis
Williamson, Count illor
WindsorBrowning, Oscar, M.A.
Chamberlain, T., ex-Mavor
Grove, H. J.
Harris, AV. H., B.A., F.G.S.
Platt, J.
The Deputation was introduced by Mr. Dixon", M.P., Chairman
of the Council of the League, who spoke as follows :—Mr.
Cladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Mr. Forster,—The Deputa
tion which I have now the honour of introducing to you
consists of about four hundred gentlemen collected from about
seventy different localities, and including thirty Members of Par
liament and twelve Mayors. These, sir, are the representatives
present here to-day of the National education League, a body
which has been in existence only a very few months ; but. during
that time it has grown into an organisation of unusual magnitude
and power, such as will be described to you by the Chairman of
the Executive Committee, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.. It is about
twelve months since this organisation was projected by a few
gentlemen in Birmingham, unknown beyond their immediate
locality, and who were mainly distinguished by their earnest
perseverance and by their strong conviction of the importance of
the principles that they entertain. (Applause.) Those principles
�were, that it was the duty of the State to see to the education of
every child in the country, and that that was to be effected by a
combination of rates and taxes administered by local management,
with central executive inspection, and strong control. (Applause.)
It was believed that this could best be carried out by making the
schools both free and unsectarian—(hear, hear, and applause)—and
requiring that attendance at these schools should l)e made com
pulsory on the children. (Cheers.) 1 may mention, sir, that the
.Executive Committee of the League, upon its formation, was over
whelmed by applications from all parts of the country to attend
meetings, and explain more particularly the objects of the League.
I myself attended upwards of twenty of such meeting's in the most
important localities in the country, and it will be interesting to
you, sir, to know that, although it is true that at those meetings
I did not find myself surrounded by many Conservatives—they are
generally adverse to great changes—(laughter)—though I. did not
find myself accompanied on to the platform by many members of
those Churches whose vested interests seemed to be attacked, yet 1
did find that those meetings were thronged by three important
classes. The Nonconformists were always there in great force—
(applause) those leaders of the great Liberal party, who on all
great occasions make themselves prominent, were never found
wanting ; and behind those bodies we found the working classes
assembled in constantly increasing numbers. All this led me to
the conclusion that, if this agitation were to he continued for
another twelve, months—(cheers)—it would be more than probable
that in all the Liberal boroughs of the empire we should find that
the majority of the voters would be associated with this great
organisation, in carrying out what they conceived to be, not merely
the question of the day, but the greatest one that has ever occupied
the attention of the people. I ought perhaps to say that upon one
point—that of free schools—the Leaguers are not quite unanimous;
but the people everywhere Lave endorsed the opinion of the
League; and also, 1 would say in addition, that with reference, to
the religious question, there is only a section of the League that
has any difference of“ opinion, and this section takes up a still more,
advanced opinion than the great body of the Leaguers. (Applause.)
I have now the pleasure to call upon Air. Joseph ('hamberlain, the
Chairman of the Executive; Committee of the League, who will
address you upon the general question.
�12
Mr. Chamberlain : Mr. Gladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Mr.
F,,rster,—It is part ot‘ my business to make myself acquainted
with the general work of the League, to estimate its real strength,
and to study opinion throughout the country, as far as I can
correctly gather it from the reports of our branches. Now, of
those branches we have already established 114, and I believe
there is not a single important town in the kingdom which is not
in this way represented.
In connection with almost everyone of
those branches we have held large public meetings ; and, as I
have seen it said that a public meeting may be held on either side
of a great question, I should like to point out that our meetings
have been almost entirely open meetings, at many of which
amendments have been moved ; and 1 may also remark that many
of them have been town’s meetings. For instance, of this nature
was the large meeting which was held in the great Hall in
Birmingham, on Monday night, at which a resolution was almost
unanimously carried in favour of the points which I am about
to urge, and the Mayor of the town was requested to attend and
form part of this Deputation. There are two considerations to
which I should like to call your attention, as showing the strength
of this movement. In the first place, there is that point to which
Mr. Dixon has made allusion—namely, that this agitation is of
very recent and rapid growth. I should say that the League has
been officially constituted only live months, although the question
was first agitated in Birmingham twelve months ago ; but T am
quite sure that, if the Government entertain any doubt as to the
opinion of the country, and will give us a little time, longer—(loud
applause)—we will make that opinion sufficiently manifest. The
second point is, that this agitation is almost entirely voluntary. 1
say that, because I do not believe there is a man connected with
the League who has made one penny by his services in connection
with it. Almost the whole of the work—the work of speaking,
and an immense deal of secretarial work—has been done by
volunteers, and oidy for some of the clerical work have we paid,
and in the case of poor persons only have we made some compen
sation for the services which they have rendered ; but never more
1 believe, and in many cases much less, than they would have
earned in any other sphere of work. Now, we have received in
the course of our agitation the co-operation of the great trades
unions, and of almost all the leaders of the great trade societies in
�13
the kingdom ; and 1 believe I may say that there has never been
a meeting of working men called to consider this question at
which resolutions have not been passed in favour of the scheme
which we urge upon you. Also, we may fairly claim to represent
the great bodies of Nonconformists in this country ; but inasmuch
as they have established a separate organisation, I feel some
delicacy in speaking for them. Now, I will state very briefly the
points upon which we are agreed in dissenting from the principles
of the Government measure. The day after the Bill was intro
duced, the Officers issued a circular to all our branches, asking for
their opinions upon the subject, and the replies disclosed an
almost unanimous concurrence upon certain points. The earnestness
of this concurrence is manifested by the fact that not seventy, as
Nir. Dixon stated, but ninety-six branches are represented in the
present Deputation. They have come from as far north as Newcastle,
as far south as the Isle Of Wight, as far west as Falmouth, and as far
east as Ipswich. (Applause.) In the first place, we object to the
year’s delay. We think this would be merely to give twelve,
months to the Denominations to run a race of wasteful expenditure,
and to increase sectarian bitterness of feeling. Our remaining
objections may be almost summarised in a sentence. Wé object,
sir, to the permissive recognition of great principles; we ask that
the Government should decide those principles for the country ;
we ask that they should not leave them as controversies of annual
recurrence, and subject to varying, and sometimes contradictory,
conclusions. (Applause.) We object to the retention of school
fees ; we think that a free school is a necessary corollary to the
compulsory attendance of children ; we believe that it is impolitic
to ticket one class on account of their poverty—(applause)—and
we believe that it will be absolutely impracticable to define the
limit at which payment should properly be made. (Applause.)
But the strongest objections which we entertain are on the subject
of the permissive compulsion, and what I must be permitted to
call the permissive sectarianism of the Bill. ()n these points there
is an absolute unanimity of opinion. We object to permissive
compulsion, because we say that the measure would only be
efficient in large towns, and that in other places it would not be
enforced—not because there is any sort of opposition to the
principle, but on account of a fear which many persons entertain
of any measure which in the slightest degree may increase the
�14
burden of the rates. Sir, we say that such Acts as Denison’s Act,
which lias been an utter failure, and the Free Libraries Act, which
has only been applied partially, are illustrations of the results of
such legislation. (A Voice : The Baths and Wash-houses also.)
Then, with reference to this permissive sectarianism, the Town
Councils object to it, and regret the importation of a new element,
causing their election to turn upon religious opinion, and not upon
personal fitness; and, when they are elected, dividing them into
two hostile camps. The Dissenters object to this measure, which
they conceive will hand over the education of this country to the
Church of England entirely in many parts of the kingdom,
especially in agricultural districts; and they think that it must
necessarily be followed by a measure which will hand over the
education of the people in 1 reland to the Church of Borne—(loud
applause)—and that in this way the influence, social and political,
of those two Churches will be unfairly increased. (Hear, hear.)
Further, we consider (that this Conscience Clause which is con
tained in the proposed Bill, or any Conscience Clause, will be
absolutely unsatisfactory. (Applause.) Where it is not needed,
there, Sir, it will be absolutely nugatory, because the parents will
not dare to make use of it; they will be afraid of placing
themselves, by signing such a document, under the ban of the
Squire and the Parson. (Cheers.) Besides, sir, we say that a
Conscience Clause of any kind does not touch the hardship of
which Dissenters complain—that the minority will in many
districts be taxed to pay for the support of schools which arc1 part
of the machinery for perpetuating doctrines to which they have a
conscientious objection. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, in conclusion,
1 have been instructed tn express a very earnest hope that the
Government, which secured the cordial and unwavering support of
the great majority of Liberal ('hurehmen, and of all the leading
Dissenting bodies in this country, in their effort to carry out the
principles of religious freedom and religious equality in Ireland
— (applause)—will not reject our petition for the application of
those principles to England and Wales, and that they will consent
to remove from what we all think otherwise a noble measure,
those, clauses which we conscientiously believe will inflict an
intolerable hardship and oppression upon a large class of the
community. (Loud applause.)
Sir Charles W. Dilke : Air. Gladstone, my Lord de Grey,
�15
and Mr. Forster,—The point which has been entrusted to me to
bring before you to-day is that of permissive compulsion—of
the conflict between the principles of permissive and of direct
general compulsion. Now, the fact of Mr. Chamberlain having
so fully stated the views of the League upon that point, and also
the fact that you have thought it right, and the Cabinet have
thought it right, to insert a principle of direct compulsion in
some shape in the Bill, clear my task is so considerably that I
think it will be necessary that I should speak only upon the per
missive character of the compulsion which is proposed. It will not
be necessary that I should say anything with regard to the neces
sity, or with regard to the justifiableness, of compulsion in general,
because those, are admitted by the insertion of the principe in the
Bill. But what I would wish, on behalf of the Deputation, and on
behalf particularly of the London Branch, in whose name I speak,
to call your attention to is, not that we feel, or are able to say, that
it might not have been right in the Government to insert some con
dition with regard to compulsion—we feel it might be proper, in
the state of public feeling on compulsion, that some condition
should have been inserted by way of a test which should be prece
dent to compulsion being required ; but we feel (and 1 think 1
speak the opinion of the whole Deputation on this point) that the
condition which is made precedent to the application of compulsion
is a condition which is wholly a bad one. Compulsion is a
matter which concerns attendance and attendance only, and the
conditition by which, under tlie Bill, compulsion is to be applied
is one which concerns not attendance, but school accommodation.
You make, in this Bill, one condition hinge upon another; you
say that where there is a deficiency of school accommodation, and
there only, you will have permissive compulsion. Well, even in
that case, the compulsion is permissive—and permissive with
whom ? It is permissive in the country with Boards which will
be chiefly composed of farmers. (Hear, hear.) That is to say,
Boards composed of persons who have a direct interest in seeing
that the compulsion is not applied. In the towns those Boards
will be Boards which, whatever their merits or demerits may be,
are bodies which very naturally have a strong opinion against any
temporary increase of the rates, and thus you give permissive
powers to Boards who will consider less the ultimate decrease of
the rates than the immediate increase which will result upon the
�1G
principle of compulsion being applied. Well, but we go much
farther than this, and we object altogether to the permissive
legislation of which this Bill is full. As Mr. Chamberlain has
pointed out, the Deputation, and the League generally, object
not merely to permissive compulsion, they object to permissive
free schools and to permissive religion—(applause)—as well as
permissive compulsion. We feel that either compulsion is right
or wrong. By putting it in the Bill you have acknowledged it is
right. If it is right, then, it should be declared to be right by
the Imperial Legislature, and if it is wrong it should not be
placed in a Government Bill. What we ask is, that compulsion
should not be left to Local Boards of any kind or however con
stituted, but that if you are to have compulsion at all, it should
not depend upon local bias, but it should l>e imposed upon the
people by the act of the Imperial Legislature. (Loud applause.)
Mr. Mundella (M.P. for Sheffield): Mr. Gladstone, my Lord
de Grey, and Mr. Forster.—The few remarks which I shall detain
you with will have reference to the effect of compulsion as an
educational power. In the first place, I believe that it is the
experience of all those who have seen the influence of education
abroad, that without compulsion nothing like a good education is
secured. However much you may cover the land with schools,
however ample, the provision may be that you may make for those
schools, as in Ame rica, as in France, indeed, and as in Holland,
the results will be altogether inadequate to your efforts unless you
make it the absolute duty of the parent that the child’shall be in
attendance, regularly and consecutively, for a certain number of
years. My attention was first drawn to this by reason of the fact
that I am an employer of labour abroad, that I have seen the
working of this system in Switzerland and Germany ; and I have
seen its contrast, too, in Holland and in France. I am conscious,
also, of what is going on in America, and I am bouud to say that
although America has made the most ample provision of any
country in the world for schools, yet American education, instead
of progressing, is on the decline. I received only a few days ago
a report from the State of Massachusetts. Compulsion may be
practically said to be, in America, permissive, as it would be under
this Bill. In the city of Lowell, the compulsory powers aie carried
out as effectually as they can be : 90 per cent, of the children are
in school. Tn the city of Fall Biver. on the other hand, in the
�17
same State, tlie compulsory powers have been altogether neglected,
as the School Boards confess, and the result is that 50 per cent, of
the children are out of school. (Cheers.) Now, I am sure it
must have been said to you often, and you must have often read
it, that we exaggerate the educational destitution of this country.
Sir, I believe it is impossible to describe it, much less to exag
gerate it; and I believe those reports which we are all anxiously
looking for from the Privy Council, on the state of education in
the four largest cities in the M idland Counties and the North, will
more than corroborate what 1 say, and that when the} arc pio
duced they will be the most black and appalling page in the
history of our country. So far from education progressing in this
country, I believe it is not progressing in the same ratio as the
population, and that we are raising around us a mass of ignorance,
pauperism, and crime which is a disgrace to us as a Christian
people. (Loud applause.) I am glad to say that this is not
exclusively a Liberal question—(hear, hear)—or a Dissenters
question, for 1 have in my possession at this moment some dozen
letters from clergymen of the Church of England, managers of the
largest schools in England—one of whom has a school of 1,-00
children—and they all, with one exception, say to me: “Me
agree with you: we must have compulsion, or we shall have
nothing effectual ; and we are quite prepared for a separation of
the religious teaching.” (Loud applause.) Now, if we can only
introduce that sort of kindly spirit into this controversy, that ve
are all willing not to urge the teaching of those things on which
we differ, but those on which we agree—(applause)—and to insist
upon the attendance of children; if you, sir, will only make it
absolute that it is the right and the appanage of every child in this
country to receive the highest education that can lie gii en
(applause)—because, Sir, we must set up a high ideal ; we mud
not compare ourselves with ourselves, but we must compare ouiselves with those great nations that for thirty or forty years hare
adopted compulsory education, and have thereby produced the
most marvellous and extraordinary results. We must not, as
Englishmen, be content with anything short of wliat they have
attained.
Mr. Gladstone : Which nations, Mr. Mundella ?
Mr. Mundella : Prussia, Saxony, Wurtemburg, Switzerland.
Baden Baden.
�18
A Voice: Holland.
Mr. Mlndella : No ; Holland is not' compulsory. But I will
speak of the great North German Confederation as affording the
model-tlie high ideal-of what we must and ought to attain to in
education
Sir 1 have wandered from one end of Saxony to.
another, I have been through Prussia and in many of its latest
departments, and I could not find an ignorant child, go where I
might (Loud applause.) It is not only that they are not ignorant,
or that, hke our own children, they have attained to the readin" of
a signboard or the scrawling of a name-that is not education—
that is not the education which they have enjoyed; but it is an
education that is useful to them in its culture and in its assistance to
them m acquiring knowledge in every relation of life. (Loud
applause.) Sir, I say if you confer that blessing upon English
children great as have been all the works that you have done
before-(loud and prolonged applause)-great as is the promise
and the hope of what you will do-(cheers)-vour name will be
associated with a still greater work-with the greatest blessinwhich can descend from generation to generation upon the people
of this country. (Loud and prolonged applause).
Mr. Robert Applegarth : My only desire for troubling you
with any remarks on this occasion is on account of the great de
termination there is on the part of the working classes to speak for
emselves on these great questions. (Hear, hear). They feel that
hitherto the upper and the middle classes have spoken on their
»‘half, perhaps too much, and that they have said too little for
enise ves. Me hold that on the education question we have
been grossly misrepresented. Lord Robert Montagu has spoken
m the name of the working classes, the Archbishop of York has
spoken, Lord Marlborough has spoken, and many such gentle
men—(laughter and applause)—whose good intentions 1 do not
questson, but whose knowledge of our wants and requirements I
do question very much. (Hear, hear). They have said we wanted
what we do not want, and they have said we are satisfied with
what we are very discontented with. (Laughter and applause),
he Kev. Canon Beechey says—speaking of the miners of this
country-that they would strike against compulsion. Now, against
that statement I protest as a falsehood. (Laughter, and cries of
) \\ ell, that is a strong word to use., I admit ; but it is un
true, and the truth should be spoken. (Laughter and applause).
�19
The miners of this country have met in conference by their dele
gates, and they have declared—not that they wanted more wages,
not that they wanted shorter working hours, or any special remedy
of that sort ; but the lirst and most important tiling they have de
clared is, that they must have compulsory education for their chil
dren. (Loud applause.) Sir, the working classes throughout the
country have long declared in favour of compulsory education, and
I should be sorry to be regarded as speaking in the name of those
that I know little about; but my claim in speaking for the work
ing classes is that 1 have worked with them and tor them all the
days of my life, and I would not for one moment say on their be
half what 1 did not conscientiously believe they would desire me
to say. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps Mr. burster will tell me, as he
has told me before, that there is a large class in whose name the
representatives of our class generally cannot speak. M ell, I can
only say that, having worked for and with the better part of my
class all my life, I am in at least as good a position as Lord 1\obert
Montagu, or the Duke of Marlborough, or the Archbishop of < can
terbury, to speak on behalf of that class ; and I say that from the
miners up to the most skilled artisans of the country, they have all
declared in favour of compulsory education. As an instance, I may
mention that, last Thursday, I was in Glasgow ; there were 1,000
men crowded into a large room, and they were drawn together
under circumstances of a most unfortunate kind, because they were
engaged in discussing the whys and wherefores of a strike not the
best circumstances under which to take into consideration the ques
tion of education. Hut having been invited to speak to them, and
having said what I had to sayr with reference to their dispute, I asked
permission to turn that strike meeting into an education meeting.
(Loud applause.) It was unanimously' accorded, and, after having
spoken to them, I asked them if they' would embody their opinions
in the form of a resolution, and the following is the resolution that
was passed :—“ That this meeting of operative carpenters and
joiners, of Glasgow, expresses its cordial sympathy with the work
men of England and Wales in their efforts to obtain the establish
ment of a compulsory, secular, and free system of National
Education, and we hereby pledge ourselves to use our influence to
assist them in their endeavours.” Well, now, that is the way’ in
which the working classes have spoken, to my certain knowledge,
for the last fourteen years. It is now some fourteen years ago that
�20
1 first ventured to speak to a body of workmen on the question of
education ; and, I care not whether it has been in connection with
strikes or with any other business, I have always endeavoured to
put in the thin edge of the education wedge, and I have been con
tinually driving it home ever since. (Laughter and applause). But
the one question upon which they have been unambiguous is this
question of compulsion. (Applause). It is no answer to our ap
plication, to our appeal, to tell us that the Union, on the other
hand, has made a counter demand; I submit that such a list of
names as the. Union musters in their sheets, is not an answer to the
demand on the part of the working classes of this country. It
may be well for the Archbishop of York, or the Duke of Marl
borough, or Lord Robert Montagu to say we do not want compul
sion ; but what do we say for ourselves ? We say we want it, and
what is more, I mean to say, with all respect, that in the end we
will have it. (Laughter and applause). We intend to agitate until
we do get it, and, further, we think we have a lair claim upon the
present Government. (Loud applause). During the last election
we lent our best exertions to move the public and to get that noble
majority from which we hope so much in the present and in the
future—(applause)—and we hope to get in return the best assist
ance from the Liberal party to obtain for us that which we require.
On these grounds, I say, we have a claim that the present Govern
ment shall do something in the way of granting what we ask for.
In conclusion, I would simply say again what I have already stated
before, that hitherto our names have been used by those who
know too little about us to be able to state what our wants are;
and in that view we have made up our minds, upon this and every
other great question, to speak for ourselves. (Loud applause).
Rev. S. A. Steixtiial (of Manchester) : I represent the branch
of the League in Manchester and the neighbourhood, embracing
nearly the whole of the manufacturing district of South Lancashire,
and including a considerable portion of Cheshire and other districts
in that neighbourhood ; and I have to speak, sir, upon one point
on which Mr. Dixon has told you there exists some difference of
opinion amongst the leaders of the League. I happen not to be
amongst those, but I represent those who follow, and amongst
them there is no difference of opinion on the subject of the
freedom of schools. 1 have had an opportunity, as Secretary of
our Manchester District Branch, to address a large number of
�21
meetings, comprised, generally speaking, ol‘ the working claesss of
our district, and everywhere there has been the strongest feeling
that the plan suggested by the Government is a dangerous method
of meeting the difficulty with regard to the payment of fees. It
has been felt that, by the plan proposed in the Government Bill,
there would be the greatest danger of introducing a pauper spirit
where it does not yet exist—(applause)—while if the schools were
opened free to all classes of tin1 community, and all were placed
upon an equal footing, there would be no danger of sapping the
independence of the community. But, on the other hand, if you
do make it compulsory upon those whose circumstances are poor to
come before a Board and show their poverty, and prove it, in order
to escape the payment of as small a sum as sixpence per week, you
have certainly done that which will undermine their sense of
independence, and teach them to apply to Boards for help in
matters connected with their personal expenditure. (Applause).
And, sir, as we believe that independence of the population
will be best preserved by putting the maintenance of the schools
upon the local rates and upon the Government taxes, and as we
find the people nowhere averse to an increase of the rates in this
direction—for they are well aware of the economy that it ■will be
in so many others—we claim that, as these schools should be
entirely supported by public money, the public should be entitled
to their free use at all times. (Applause.)
Mr. Illingworth (of Bradford, M.P. for Knaresborough, : Air.
Gladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Air. Forster,—I have been
deputed to speak to the mode in which it is proposed to deal with
the religious difficulty in this Bill, and I believe I am giving
utterance to the convictions of the great Nonconformist bodies in
this country, and not of them only, but of all that worthy section
of Episcopalian and other Churches who join with us in all
Liberal movements, when I express a strong feeling of regret that
there, is not a clear enunciation of sound principle in the Bill upon
ecclesiastical and religious matters, when the groundwork which
was laid down in the last session of Parliament seems to have
been forgotten both in its inception and in its results ; and that,
further, between the two parts of the Bill—one part having refer
ence to existing schools, and the other to the schools to be created
by public money, and to be directly under public control—there
ought to have been a greater distinction drawn than that which
�oo
prevails in tlie Government Bill. Dissenters will be disposed to
recognise rights in existing schools on the part of a class which it
would be impossible they could consider for one moment in ratecreated and publicly-managed schools ; but, so far as the existing
schools are concerned, the universal feeling is that nothing of the
character of a Conscience Clause, according to its present or almost
any possible, acceptation, will be of the slightest use. (Hear, hear.)
I wish to draw attention to this fact, that there is in existence
what is called a national system of education in Ireland, governed
by national conscience, and that in that system the religious rights
of the minority have been protected. And why ! Because the
minority of Ireland happen to be connected with the governing
body in England, and therefore it is that their rights have been
thought of and effectually guarded. Now, we ask a reference on
the part of the Government to the working of that measure, and
to the particular provisions of the Irish system; and we say surely,
after having done, as Nonconformists, what we did last session
towards the bringing about of that happy condition in Ireland in
which the State minds its own business and leaves the religious
bodies to manage theirs—(applause)—we ask that in England equal
rights may be conceded, and that not suing in forma pauperis—
(heai1, hear)—nor any longer accepting the crumbs that fall from
the table—(applause)—but as sitting ourselves at the table, we
claim equal rights. (Loud applause.) 1 have the honour of being
one of tin* constituents of my right honourable friend Mr. Forster,
and no one can have a higher regard for him than I have, and,
indeed, for all the members of the Cabinet. I believe they are
about the best men that ever a party was asked to follow. (Loud
applause.) But, at the. same time, that does not exclude us from
stating with great respect, but with great candour, our demands
upon this question, and we say it is impossible for any satisfaction
to ensue from the carrying of this measure, because it does not
provide for that separation of religious teaching which I have
before pointed out. With that the demands of the Dissenters will
cease. They will ask equal rights with all other religious bodies,
and they look forward to a time when a. controlling national
system of education shall educate all the children of the land.
(Loud applause.)
The Rev. F. Barham Zincke (Chaplain to the Queen) : Mr.
Gladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Air. Forster,—Mr. Mundella
�23
says that this is not a Nonconformist question. I rise as a member
of the Established Church, and as the Chairman of the Ipswich
Committee, upon which two other clergymen of the Established
Church sit, to state that it is our opinion that the time lias now
come when the question of religious teaching should be settled in
a different manner from that by which it is proposed to be settled
in this Bill. We think that that time has come, because to
whatever part of the country we look we see indications in favour
of our opinions. (Applause.) 1 need not enter into particulars.
We know that it is so in Wales, we know that it is so in Scotland,
we know that we must do nothing in this country which will
endanger the national system in Ireland—(applause)—we know
that large bodies of the inhabitants of this country, such as
Nonconformists and the artisan class, whom we have represented
here to-day, are in favour of dealing with the religious question in
a manner different from that in which it is dealt with by this Bill.
We know that if it is dealt with in the manner proposed, a
variety of great evils will immediately follow ; we know that it will
produce an enormous amount of animosity—(hear, hear)— and of ill
blood in every borough and in every rural district in the country.
We know, too, when we look at what is passing in our great
English Universities, and what we have lately heard coming from
Trinity College, Dublin, that people’s minds are changing upon
this subject; and with reference to my own mind, speaking as a
member of the Established Church, I should feel no fear for the
cau^e of religion or for the cause of the Established Church, not
merely if we went as far as it is proposed to go, but even if we
went further—as far as appears to be required by the principality
of Wales. (Applause.) I think that the strength of the Church
does not consist in arrangements which were made centuries ago,
and have come down to us from a time when the political situation
was very different from that of the present day, and when all the
conditions of the question were very different. But it must
depend upon the estimate in which the Church is held by the
people; and if religious teaching is separated from secular, then
the country will feel that there is a great work to be done by the
clergy, and I believe that in the present temper of the clergy they
would do it heartily. What would be the result ? Why, then
the people would feel more respect and more gratitude and more
affection for the clergy than they do at the present. That would
�form a secure basis on which to rest the Establishment, ami that
is the only basis upon which, 1 think, in these days it can stand.
(Loud applause.)
The Rev. Charles Vince (Nonconformist .Minister) : Mr. Glad
stone, Mr. Forster, and Lord de Grey,—I should like to say that
the treatment of the religious difficulty has been put as the last
point to be spoken upon to-day, not because we consider it the
least important, but because we consider it the most important.
Many of us feel that the proposed treatment of the religious
difficulty is so unsatisfactory', that even it the other matters we
object to were adjusted to meet our wishes, we should still be
constrained to deprecate the passing of the Bill. (Applause.) I
should like, further, to say that our position of antagonism to Her
Majesty s Government is one that we did not anticipate, and now
we are forced into it we deeply lament it. Nothing, indeed, but
the strength and depth of our convictions as to the mischievous
results which will follow if this Bill becomes law in its present
form, would have induced us to come here in opposition to a
Ministry' whose advent to power was with some* of us the greatest
political joy' of our life. (Applause.) I would respectfully urge
that the religious difficulty is not met in the Bill, but is practically
ignored. The Imperial Parliament is asked not to decide the
matter, but to pass it on to a number of local Parliaments, in
which probably it will be perpetually discussed, but never finally
settled. (Applause.) AVe cannot see that there is the slightest
restriction put upon the power of the ►School Boards. They are at
liberty7, in establishing schools, to make them of what theological
colour and complexion they please, provided there is a Conscience
(Clause ; and, having determined to establish schools of such a
sectarian character as they deem fit, they have power to rate all
the inhabitants of the district for the maintenance of the schools.
The School Board in each district will be a Convocation—not
with the semblance of power, but with the reality of power.
(Applause.) It will be an ecclesiastical council, with authority to
determine what particular creed shall be exalted and endowed as
the creed of the State school in that particular district. I would
submit that no municipal or parochial body' was ever before
entrusted with such powers. A body invested with these preroga
tives by’ the Imperial Parliament cannot be annually elected
without strife and bitterness. It has been said that this will be
�the Church-rate contest over again. It will be so, with a very
important addition. The vestries in the Church-rate, contests had
to decide nothing about the services to be performed or the
doctrines to be taught; they had only to decide whether the
parish should be rated for the maintenance and repair of the
fabrics of the Episcopal Church. The School Board will have to
decide what doctrines shall be taught, and, therefore, it is the
Church-rate contest over again, with more important issues to be
determined, and, consequently, with greater danger of party strife
and bitterness. (Hear, hear.) We feel, sir, that our fears cannot
be denounced as chimerical. It cannot be said that we are going
simply upon conjecture, because there is the history of the past to
guide us. It has been well said that “ History is the Statesman's
book of prophecy.” With the history of the Church-rate contest
in our hands, one needs far less than a Statesman’s sagacity to
foresee what must be the issue of these contests for the election
of a body invested with the extraordinary functions which T think
I have fairly described. (Applause.) We feel, sir, that the
Conscience Clause does not meet the difficulty. There is one most
important class for whom no Conscience Clause is proposed.
There are two parties to be affected by these schools—the children
who will go to them, and ihe ratepayers who will have to support
them. Now, there is no Conscience Clause provided for the
protection of the ratepayers; and if, as is extremely probable
in certain districts, the rate-supported school should be a
sectarian school, then, as Mr. (’hamberlain has said, the
minority will be taxed to support the teaching of the religion
of the majority.
It is very certain that, if that state of
things is brought about by an Act of Parliament, we shall have
■distraints for school rates as we used to have distraints for (Ihurcli
rates. I fear there are many who would feel bound to take that
determined stand, because it is generally considered that the time
is passed by for ever for any man in England to be directly taxed
for the teaching of another man’s religion. (Applause.) I would,
moreover, respectfully submit that it is not merely contests between
Nonconformists and Episcopalians that are to be dreaded. I need
not say that the differences of opinion which have always been
more or less latent in the Episcopal Church are now developed
into great prominence, and are held and maintained with great
•earnestness. It is quite likely that, in certain districts, in the
�26
election of a Hoard there will he contests between different parties
in the Episcopalian Church, as well as contests between Noncon
formists and Episcopalians. (Laughter and applause.) English
(Christendom dees not increase in uniformity of opinion. (Laughter.)
I believe it does increase in unity of spirit. It seems to us that
the- proposal of Her Majesty’s Government for the treatment of
the religious difficulty will aggravate the evils incident to diversi
ties of opinion, and will aim a deadly blow at that charity of
spirit which increasingly prevails amongst all religious parties in
this country. (Loud applause.)
The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone: Mr. Dixon and gentlemen,
—On behalf of my colleagues, Lord de Grey and Mr. Forster,
and on my own behalf, I wish to say that I have had great
pleasure in receiving, from so many sources, gentlemen of so
much weight and ability, and so various (if I may so say) in
colour upon many matters, and hearing from them the expression
of their views. You are much too well aware of the gravity of
the question at issue, and of the necessity of weighing with very
great care every resolution of the Government upon them, to
complain, I am quite sure, if I say that I think our business on
this occasion is to take the expression of your views for careful
scrutiny and consideration. (Applause.) But I should wish to
he quite sure that, as far at least as you are disposed to carry the
matter, 1 understand the nature of them; and I admit that
nothing can be clearer than that you take great objection to
several of the provisions that are contained in the Government
Bill. (Laughter.) But at the same time, I listened with great
comfort and satisfaction, not only to the general expressions of
good-will which you gave us—I am sure beyond our deserts—
(cries of “No”)—hut likewise to the declaration of Mr.
Chamberlain, who I may consider as in some sense being your
chairman—the representative of you all—who did not hesitate to
state that he thought in other matters, outside the limit of your
objections, the Bill may fairly he regarded as “ a noble measure.”
That admission on the one side—or rather that avowal, for I
won't call it an admission—together with the frank statement of
your difficulties upon the other, affords, I think a basis upon which
we cannot but hope that by our united efforts, and by a spirit at
once of firmness and conciliation in all quarters, we shall be able
to work out a result of which I won’t anticipate the precise con
�27
dition and details at present, because you know very well that we
have other matters in hand—(laughter)—which for the moment,
and for a few weeks to come, perhaps, will afford us plenty of care
and occupation. But now, with regard to your particular views
upon the points that have been raised, there are two upon which
I should, for the satisfaction of my own mind (I don’t know
whether Lord de Grey and Mr. Forster would like to put any
other question), like to be clear as to what your views are. I have
not quite distinctly gathered the manner in which you would
propose to deal with existing schools. You have stated, I think,
very distinctly, through the mouths of several speakers, that you
do not approve of the Conscience Clause inserted in the Bill;
not so much on account of the particular form of that clause, but
because you mistrust altogether, and are inclined, I think, almost
to repudiate—(applause and laughter)—anything in the nature of
a Conscience Clause. (Applause.) Now, if that be so, do I
understand that you, Mr. Dixon, or Mr. Chamberlain, as far as
you can venture to speak, wish me to understand that in dealing
with existing schools all through the country, your term of dealing
with them would be that they should receive no aid from rates—
(a voice, “ Or taxes ”)—or from the Privy ('ounc.il—(cries of “ No,
no ”)—that they should receive no aid from rates excepting upon
the terms of conforming to your basis ; so that the basis of all
schools aided by rates should be one and uniform throughout the
country I (Hear, hear.) Do I understand that to be the opinion
of the meeting generally?
Mr. Dixon : 1, perhaps, had better tell Mr. Gladstone what, so
far as I know, is the prevailing sentiment with reference to the
existing schools. It is, that there should be separate religious
teaching, as a condition of the further grants which it is proposed
under this Bill to make to them; and that with reference to th«
new schools which may be provided out of the rates, those schools
shall be entirely unsectarian. (Applause.)
Mr. Gladstone : Then the existing schools might differ from
the new schools, in respect of their having separate religious
teaching ?
Mr. Dixon : ()f their own denomination.
Mr. Mvndella : At separate hours.
Mr. Gladstone : I understand that: but that teaching must be
confined to particular hours. (Applause.) Then, with regard to the
�28
power of the Local Boards as to religion : certainly, I think if any
one objection has been taken more strongly and broadly than
another, it has been both to the amount and the kind of that
power. That has been made perfectly clear to my mind. But 1
have not gathered with equal clearness what it is that you would
substitute for it. The principles are, as 1 understand, that educa
tion is to be free, or. for the sake of avoiding ambiguity of words,
gratuitous. (Applause.) I understand from Mr. Dixon there is
some difference of opinion, but that the bulk of you are united
upon that subject. (Applause.) But with reference to the com
pulsory principle, T have not understood from ATr. Dixon or any
speaker, that then* was a difference of opinion among you. (Cries
of ‘‘None.’’) With respect to the question of the power of Local
Boards as to religion, what am 1 to understand would be your
basis I Where would you draw the line between the school that is
secular and the school to which you would object on the ground of
its being what is now termed sectarian ? Would anything what
ever in the nature of religion he permissible in your schools, or
would it not ! The reason 1 put the question is that I think it
one of very great importance, because it has been stated that the
view of the League (I do not pretend to be accurately informed,
and 1 only ask for information) is that the Holy Scriptures might
be read in the schools provided they were not explained. Now,
only for the sake of greater clearness, I will put it according to the.
old story of the three courses. Here are Holy Scriptures read and
explained; Holy Scriptures read and not explained; and simple
secular instruction, without any reading of the Scriptures at all.
(“ The last ! the last ! ’’ and loud cheers). I do not know whether
Mr. Dixon or Mr. Chamberlain is authorised to speak upon this
point in the name of the League; but, if they were, I think it
would be of advantage to us to know. In stating those three
courses I have not at all wished to preclude him or any other gen
tlemen from stating any other. 1 only state those as being what
have prominently occurred to myself. With regard to what might
be, called theological or religious instruction, I have begged the
question so far—I have assumed that you would include that; but
with regard to any of those particular methods which it may be
(or by some may be thought to) fall short of denominational in
struction, it would be an advantage to us to know whether the
League have an article of its creed if I may so call it, upon that
�29
subject; and, if so, which of those three courses it is disposed to
follow.
Mr. Chamberlain' : Sir, in the draft of a Hill which was
prepared on behalf of the League, in order to put in the clearest
form their views before the country, and which was passed by the
Executive Committee, subject, however, to further revision, there
occurs this clause, which, to a certain extent, answers your ques
tion :—“ That in the national rate schools no creed, catechism, or
tenet peculiar to any sect shall be taught in any national rate
school, but the School Board shall have power to grant the use
of the school rooms out of school hours for the giving of
religious instruction, provided that no undue preference be
given to one or more sects to the exclusion of others.
But the rooms shall not be granted for the purposes of
religious worship. The School Board shall have power to permit
the reading of the Scriptures in the schools, provided that no child
shall be present at such reading if his parents or guardians dis
approve. That the time for giving such reading be before or after
the ordinary school business, and that it be so fixed as that no
child be thereby in effect excluded directly or indirectly from the
other advantages which the school affords.” I may point out that
that clause does not say anything about the explanation of the
Scriptures. It was thought that was sufficiently provided for in
the first part of the clause, which says that “no tenet peculiar to
any sect shall be taught; ” and it was considered, therefore, that if
the reading were allowed in the schools, it must be of a perfectly
unsectarian character. It is, however, only fair that I should say,
before I .sit down, that although that was the clause as adopted
provisionally by the Executive Committee, yet there is a Aery
strong feeling amongst the members of the League that for that
clause should be substituted one requiring that secular instruction
alone should be given in the schools which are aided by the rates.
(Applause.)
Mr. Gladstone : It would seem to me to follow that if that
clause were acted upon, something in the nature of a Conscience
Clause is introduced into flic basis of your own Bill.
Mr. Chamberlain : What is called the “time-table Conscience
Clause ” would have to be introduced with regard to the Bible
reading, to meet the difficulty of the Iloman Catholics, who use a
different version of the Scriptures, as in Ireland.
�30
Air. Gladstone: Then with reference to the power (one cannot
mistake the object of it) of the Board to permit the use of the
room for denominational instruction out of school hours, have you
no tear at all that that would introduce into the vestries the same
element of religious contention which has been so vividly described
by Mr. Vince ?
Air. Chamberlain : The clause only permits the use of the
school rooms for such purposes “provided that no undue preference
be given to one or more sects.”
Air. Gladstone : I have not, as I have said, the least doubt
about the object—it is that perfect impartiality should be observed;
but with regard to the administration of the matter under the
clause, it occurs to me that the very conditions of time and light
available, in a district where there might be a variety of sects claim
ing the room, would make a considerable amount of practical diffi
culty ; and I only ask whether you apprehend that with reference
to the administration of that portion of the clause, if it were
carried, you might not be open to a portion of the very same evils
as those that have been foreshadowed by Air. ATnce.
Air. Chamberlain : That was apprehended by many members of
the League.
Air. Gladstone : Then 1 do not think there is anything more
that I need troAle you upon. Gentlemen, I am much obliged to
you.
Mr. Dixon : On behalf of the Deputation, Air. Gladstone, I
tender you our most gratefid thanks for the patience with which
you have received us.
The Deputation then withdrew.
I
�NATIONAL EDUCATION L E A G U E.
O EJECT.
The establishment of a system which shall secure the Education
of every Child in the Country.
J/AIA A’S.
1. —Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that
sufficient School Accommodation is provided for every
Child in their district.
2. —The cost of founding and maintaining such Schools as may
be required shall be provided out of Local Rates, sup
plemented by Government Grants.
3. —All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the
management of Local Authorities, and subject to Govern
ment Inspection.
4. —All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be Unsectarian.
5. —To all Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free.
6. —School"Accommodatian being provided, the State or the Local
Authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of
children of suitable age not otherwise receiving education.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE LEAGUE.
George Dixon, M.P., Chairman of Council.
Joseph Chamberlain, Chairman of Executive Committee.
John Jaffray, J.P., Treasurer.
Jesse Collings, Honorary Secretary.
Applegarth, Robert, London.
Bazley, C. IL, J.P., Manchester.
Booth, Charles, Liverpool.
Bragg, William, Sheffield.
Brown, Rev. J. Jenkyn, Birmingham.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Bristol.
Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham.
Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham.
Cheetham, William, Manchester.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham.
Collier, W. F., Plymouth.
�Cowen, J., jun., Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Dale, R. W., M.A., Birmingham.
Dawson. George, M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Dilke, Sir 0. W., Bart., M.P., London.
Fawcett, Professor, M.P., Cambridge.
Fawcett, Mrs.
Ferguson, Major, Carlisle.
Field, Alfred, Birmingham.
Fry, Herbert, London.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, M.P., London.
Hodgson, W. B., LL.D., London.
Holden, Angus, Bradford.
Holland, Henry, ex-Mayor of'Birmingham.
Howell, George, London.
Huth, Edward, Huddersfield.
Kenriek, William, Birmingham.
Kingsley, Rev. Canon, Eversley.
Kitson, James, jun., Leeds.
Lloyd, G. B. Birmingham.
Macfie, Rev. M., F. R.G.S., Birmingham.
Mander, S. S., Wolverhampton.
Martineau, R. F., Birmingham.
Mathews, 0. E., Birmingham.
Maxfield, M., Leicester.
Maxse, Captain, R.N., Southampton.
Middlemore, William, Birmingham.
Osborne, E.
Birmingham.
Osler, A. Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Prange, F. G., Liverpool.
Rothera, G. B., Nottingham.
Rumney, Alderman, Manchester.
Ryland, Arthur, Birmingham.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Timmins, Samuel, F.R.S.L., Birmingham.
Vinci1, Rev. < ’hartes, Birmingham.
Webster, Thomas, Q.C., Loudon.
Winkworth, Stephen, Bolton.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Zineke, Rev. F. B., M.A., Ipswich.
FINANCE COMMITTEE—Chairman, William Harris.
PUBLISHING COMMITTEE—Chairman, J. Thaikray Bunce.
BRANCHES COMMITTEE—Chairman, R. F. Martineau.
Francis Adams, Secretary.
Central Offices, 47, Ann Street,
Birmingham.
THE “JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Verbatim report of the proceedings of a deputation of the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, M.P., the Right Hon. Earl de Grey and Ripon, the Right Hon. W.E. Forster, M.P. on Wednesday, March 9, 1870
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Education League
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Birmingham
Collation: 30, [2] p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Aims and objectives of the League and committee members listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Includes list of delegates from the branches.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
National Education League
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5207
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Verbatim report of the proceedings of a deputation of the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, M.P., the Right Hon. Earl de Grey and Ripon, the Right Hon. W.E. Forster, M.P. on Wednesday, March 9, 1870), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Earl de Grey and Ripon
George Forster
Religious Education
State Education
W.E. (William Ewart) Gladstone
William Edward Robinson
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/16e9506922b777816d99a6f419b2195d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dFfDg-cWswN8a%7E6l-J840ZTkr2nO4y7aTr%7ERwy3H0wc0iUEJR6YLfDTn3cLKm3DA7jVtxbHpYEY02ju1yE87VHY4C4ApNqF5zLuM9NUpnpNMticua3ZrtRRCU3BpZYo0hBMWjLk1y6aTXS-5BWj7U2A98u0xHY5QELCj5-BFaQEk7u8d3XRJ6fOqc-i1Frg2Z5tZgzql9VANswC3zSuctRHSA3iCsxfsjnuQH2pNTBd24JtYBC687J3EHtY6T7WOSmyK8CzqtCDT7dEFE%7EkXEM6N6McyGn1XJX7bXEyvav3xAu9rl%7E88C%7E3ZdbOosWHTCKMPz6ifY8yaLW754Zifdg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f414eefa0ab0749c7d0c1b7743df6c34
PDF Text
Text
REPORT
. \
OF THE
FIRST GENERAL MEETING OF MEMBERS
OF THE
I
NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE,
HELD AT BIRMINGHAM,
4*.
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, OCT. 12 & 13, 1869.
PRICE, TO NON-MEMBERS, ONE SHILLING.
BIRMINGHAM:
“THE JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET.
1869.
��NATIONAL
EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Offices: 47, ANN STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
PROVISIONAL
COMMITTEE.
GEORGE DIXON, Esq., M.P., Chairman, Birmingham.
J. CHAMBERLAIN, Esq., Vice-Chairman.
JOHN JAFFRAY, Esq., Treasurer.
COUNCILLOR JESSE COLLINGS, Hon. Sec.
FRANCIS ADAMS, Secretary.
Holland Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Baker, George, Councillor, Tennant Street, Birmingham.
Beale, W. J., Westbourne Road, Edgbaston.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Wordsworth Place, Small Heath, Birm.
Chamberlain, J. H., Christ Church Buildings, New Street, Birmingham.
Chance, R. L., Chad Hill House, Harborne Road. Edgbaston.
Clarke, Rev. C., F.L.S., Edgbaston.
Crosskey, Rev. Henry W., F.G.S., George Street, Edgbaston.
Dawson, George, M.A., Hawksley, West Heath, Worcestershire.
Field, A., Parade, Birmingham.
Harris, W., Councillor, Stratford Road, Camp Hill, Birmingham.
Hawkes, H., Aiderman, Grampian House, Bristol Road, Edgbaston.
Heslop, T. P., M.D., Temple Row West, Birmingham.
Holliday, W., J.P., Chad Valley, Edgbaston.
Johnson, G. J., Waterloo Street, Birmingham.
Kenrick, Timothy, J.P., Maple Bank, Edgbaston.
Kenrick, John Arthur, J.P., Fallowiield, Edgbaston.
Kenrick, Wm., Mountlands, Edgbaston.
Lloyd, G. B., Wellington Road, Edgbaston.
Mathews, C. E., Augustus Road, Edgbaston.
Middlemore, Wm., J.P., Elvetham Road, Edgbaston.
Osborne, E. C., Aiderman, Carpenter Road, Edgbaston.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., South Bank, Edgbaston.
Ryland, Arthur, Aiderman, Cannon Street, Birmingham.
Ryland, Wm., Noel Road, Edgbaston.
Timmins,-Samuel, F.R.S.L., Elvetham Lodge, Edgbaston.
Vince, Rev. C., Hockley Hill, Birmingham.
Wiggin, H., J.P., Aiderman, Metchley Grange, Harhorne.
Wright, J. S., Church Hill, Handsworth.
�The following is a copy of the first circular which was issued by
the Provisional Committee.
NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Birmingham, February, 1869.
Sir,
I am requested by the Provisional Committee, formed for the
promotion of a National Education League, to forward to you the annexed
draft of a scheme which they have drawn up for the furtherance of a system
of education which shall reach all those children who are now growing up in
a degree of ignorance injurious alike to their own interests and to that of
the community at large.
The Provisional Committee are of opinion, that in those parts of the
country where a sufficient school organization does not exist, the deficiency
can be speedily and adequately supplied only by the combined action of the
central and local authorities.
The new machinery to be provided by this
joint action need not injuriously interfere with those existing schools which
are satisfactorily educating the people ; but the Provisional Committee are of
opinion that it is all-important that no time should be lost in bringing a good
education within the reach of even the poorest and the most neglected
children in the country ; and they are also of opinion, that when the means
of education shall everywhere exist, the poverty or apathy of parents ought
not to be allowed to prevent those means being availed of by their children.
If you are willing to assist in carrying out the objects of the proposed
League, I shall feel obliged by you signing and returning to me the enclosed
form.
I am
Your obedient servant,
GEORGE DIXON-
�NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
'
OBJECT.
The establishment of a system which shall secure the education of every
child in England and Wales.
1.
MEANS.
Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that sufficient school
accommodation is provided for every child in their district.
2.
The cost of founding and maintaining such schools as may be required
shall be provided out of the Local Rates, supplemented by Government
Grants.
3.
All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the management of Local
Authorities and subject to Government Inspection.
4.
AU Schools aided by Local Rates shaU be Unsectarian.
5.
To aU Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free.
6.
School Accommodation being provided, the State or the Local Authorities
shall have power to compel the attendance of children of suitable age
not otherwise receiving education.
The payment of an annual subscription shaU constitute membership.
The Executive Body shaU be a Council elected at a general meeting of
the members, convened for that purpose.
The Council shall appoint a Chairman, an Honorary Secretary, a Treasurer,
and such paid officers as may be required.
The general business of the League shall be conducted by the Council, and
they shall make aU arrangements for the formation of branch societies, collect
and disseminate information, and prepare the way for such legislation as wiU
carry out the objects of the League.
�The following is a copy of the invitation to the General
Meeting.
NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Offices—47, Ann Street, Birmingham.
September 16tli, 1869.
Sir,
We beg to inform you that a General Meeting of the
Members of the National Education League will be held at the
Exchange Assembly Rooms, Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday,
the 12th and 13th of October, and to hand you a Programme of theproceedings.
The Provisional Committee desire to express their earnest hope that
you will be able to attend dming the whole, or at least a part of this very
important Meeting, at which a large number of the leading Members of
the League are expected to be present.
It will much facilitate the completion of the arrangements for the
Meeting if you will inform us at your earliest convenience whether you
will be able to attend.
We are, Sir,
Yours respectfully,
GEORGE DIXON, Chairman.
JESSE COLLINGS, Hon. Sec.
FRANCIS ADAMS, Secretary.
�PROGRAMME
FOR THE FIRST
GENERAL MEETING TO BE HELD AT BIRMINGHAM,
On Tuesday and, Wednesday, October 12th and, 13th, 18G9.
TUESDA Y,
OCTOBER 12tli.
Morning Sitting, from Ten o’clock a.m. till One p.m.
Election of Chairman.
The Report of the Provisional Committee to be read.
Election of the Council, Chairman, Treasurer, and Executive Committee.
The following Resolution will be submitted to the Meeting :—
“Resolved, that a Bill, embodying the principles of the League,
be prepared for introduction into Parliament early next
Session.”
Afternoon Sitting, Three p.m. to Five
p.m.
Papers and Discussion on the best system for National Schools, based
upon Local Rates and Government Grants.
Evening, Eight p.m.
Soiree at the Town Hall, given by the Mayor of Birmingham.
WEDNESDAY,
OCTOBER 13th.
Morning Sitting, Ten
a.m.
to
One p.m.
Papers and Discussion on Compulsory Attendance, and on the best
means of enforcing it.
Afternoon Sitting, Three p.m.
to
Five p.m.
Papers and Discussion on Unsectarian and Free Schools.
Evening, Half-past Seven p.m.
Public Meeting in the Town Hall; the Mayor in the Chair.
Members wishing to contribute Papers are requested to communicat
with the Secretary.
��NATIONAL
EDUCATION
LEAGUE.
FIRST MEETING OF MEMBERS.
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN.
Henry Holland, Esq., Mayor of Birmingham, moved that Mr.
George Dixon, M.P., be elected Chairman. He said that Mr.
Dixon, as the originator of the League, and by the zeal, ability,
and devotion which he had shown, not only of late but in past
years, in the cause of education, was deserving of the position
which it was proposed that he should occupy. The appointment
of Mr. Dixon would give satisfaction, not only to the ladies and
gentlemen present, but to those friends of education throughout
the kingdom who were with the League in spirit, though there
were many of them who could not attend the meeting.
Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., delegate from Carlisle, seconded
the motion, which was carried.
THE CHAIRMAN’S ADDRESS.
The Chairman said: The movement which we have met to in
augurate to-day is one of momentous national importance, involving
in its issues not merely the future material prosperity of the
nation, but its intellectual moral, and I will venture to add, its
religious progress. The originators of this movement have met
with a response far exceeding their expectations. On their behalf, I
very heartily welcome here the many eminent men who have come
from various parts of the country to assist in the deliberations of
the League, to return to their homes, I trust, with a deepened
sense of the importance of the scheme, and with a stronger
�10
determination to exercise all their influence in its favour. We
have as yet made no appeal for subscriptions; but our expenses
have been heavy, and will rapidly increase as the area of our
operations widens. To collect information upon all the various
branches of the great subject we have taken up, to put this
information into a popular form, and to circulate it everywhere,
especially among the working classes, will require very large funds
indeed. But, in addition, we desire to send able lecturers all
through the country, who shall explain our views, and excite
discussion upon them everywhere. To create an irresistible
public opinion is a work of the greatest magnitude, and one which
will task our powers to the utmost. Our success will largely
depend upon the means placed at our disposal. You will see, by
the paper which has been placed in your hands, that a few friends
have commenced a subscription list, upon a scale which, if
imitated in other parts of the country, will give us all we want;
and I invite you to fill up the forms with as large amounts as
you are able. And to stimulate you further in this good work, I
will read you a few letters which have been received by me. The
first is from the Secretary to the Society for the Encouragement of
Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in London, Mr. P. Le Neve
Foster. He says :—
“The Council of this Society have much pleasure in sending
(enclosed) a cheque for twenty guineas as a donation to the funds of the
National Education League, and have directed me to attend with a depu
tation, and represent the Society at the meetings of the League at
Birmingham next week. The Rev. Wm. Rogers, and Messrs. E. Chadwick,
C.B., and E. Carleton Tufnell, have been requested to form the deputation.
The Council think it right to say that they cordially concur in the programme
of the League in so far as its object is to ensure the groundwork of
instruction to all the children of the United Kingdom, and that they shall
not be less well educated than children in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden,
and Norway ; but as a question of general policy, and as representing many
different opinions among the numerous members of the Society, they hesitate
at the present time to pledge the Society to all the details of the League
programme. The Council think it desirable that all the various modes of
ensuring universal instruction to the children of the United Kingdom should
be amply discussed from many points of view, and they intend to invite
members of the Society and others to a discussion of them after the meetings
�11
have been held in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, &c. For the con
sideration of the Birmingham meeting the Council transmit a paper, which
has been prepared by some members of the Council, and which appears to be
worthy of serious attention.”
On the paper you have in your hand you will find some subscrip
tions of unusually large amount for Birmingham; hut I will
venture to say that no subscription has given greater encouragement
to the Provisional Committee than that from a working man,
whose letter I am now going to read :
“Dear Sir,—Would you kindly forward me a prospectus or programme of
the National Education League, of which I am informed you are president,
and say if it is open to mechanics to become members, as I understand
from the report of your Sheffield address. I am myself an engineer, and am
at times utterly astonished at the fearful amount of ignorance among my
fellow workmen. In the works in which I am foreman, out of 200 hands not
20 either read the daily papers or care for the welfare of their fellows. Sir, I
assure you this is a deplorable fact, and if it was not for our glorious Free
Library it would be much worse. If I can do anything towards improving
this state of things I will willingly subscribe 7s. 6d. (a day’s wages) every
month. I know the want of education, as I could not write until I was
fifteen. If you could send me a few papers, so that I could interest my
fellow-workmen in this good work, I should be pleased.”
Now, the programme of the meeting, which yon have all read,
tells you exactly what the course of business is to be. The
arrangements are not, in some respects, so perfect as we could have
wished, but they are the result of full and anxious consideration;
and I hope, therefore, that if anyone should find that they are not
quite what he thinks best, he will accept them as a whole, and try
to be satisfied with them. One of the greatest difficulties which we
have to encounter is that the time at our disposal is extremely
short. We dare not ask our friends at a distance to come here for
more than two days; but we have a great deal more work to do in
those two days than we shall be able to get through to our satis
faction. We have had more papers sent to us than there will be
time to read; and after the papers are read there will be, I am
sorry to say, but very little time left for discussion. I have,
therefore, to beg not only that papers may be read as quickly as
possible, but that the speeches afterwards be as short and con
tain as much as possible. Next year, when we again have a
�12
general meeting of members, we shall be better acquainted with
each other, we shall know who are really the leading spirits in this
movement throughout the country • and then our arrangements will
no doubt be more perfect. There is one thing to which I wish
most particularly to call your attention. It is that we are not
met here for the purpose of discussing our principles.
Our
platform is already laid. We have accepted the bases of our
constitution, and we must not stray from them. But we have
met to discuss the best manner in which we can carry out our
principles. Upon that part of the question we may differ, and we
want all the light thrown upon it that it is possible for us to get.
This meeting has been called, by mistake, a conference. It is not
a conference. It is a meeting of the members of the League and
their friends, pledged to a certain course of action. We are not
answerable, as a League, for the individual opinions that will be
expressed in the papers and in the discussions. We are only
answerable for that programme, for that scheme, which has been
circulated throughout the country; but it is right that I should
explain one word in that scheme. We have had a great number of
letters upon the subject, and I believe that there are differences of
opinion upon it. There are some who do not understand what is
meant when we say that “ all schools aided by local rates ” are to be
“unsectarian.” Now, what we mean by this word “unsectarian” is
that in all national rate-schools it shall be prohibited to teach cate
chisms, creeds, or theological tenets peculiar to particular sects. These
are not to be taught during school hours. But beyond this prohi
bition we are not going; we leave everything else to be decided by
the school managers, who as the representatives of the ratepayers
will follow the best guides in these matters, viz., the wishes of the
inhabitants of their districts. School managers, for instance, will
have power to permit or prohibit the use of the Bible; but if
sanctioned it must be read without note or comment. Then they
will also have power to grant or to refuse the use of class-rooms,
out of school hours, for the purpose of religious instruction; but
of course an unjust preference must not be given to particular sects.
I trust we are all agreed that the best way of dealing with what is
called the religious difficulty is to put it on one side. Having
�13
decided to adopt the principle of excluding from the curriculum of
our primary schools all those religious subjects about which there
are differences of opinion, let us leave the carrying out of that
principle to the school authorities in a spirit of generous confidence.
A self-governing people ought to have faith in the discretion of
representatives whom it chooses and can remove. I will now call
upon the Secretary, Mr. Adams, to read letters from gentlemen who
are unable to attend here to-day.
LETTERS.
Mr. Francis Adams (Secretary) then read the following letters:—
From Edward Miall, Esq., M.P.
Welland House, Forest Hill, S.E., October 9th, 1869.
Dear Mr. Dixon,
I find it quite impracticable so to arrange my engagements
as to leave me at liberty to be present at the Education Conference, on
Tuesday and Wednesday next. I much regret this, because I had hoped to
derive from the papers to be read, and the discussions which may be had
upon them, clearer views of one or two of the principles of the League than
I can pretend to hold at present. I trust, however, that due care 'will be
taken to give publicity to the proceedings, and that I and others who happen
to be precluded from availing ourselves of your courteous invitation, will have
an opportunity of making ourselves fully acquainted -with what has been
said and done at the Conference.
As I have already made you aware, I heartily concur in the “object”
which the Conference has been assembled to promote, and generally in the
“means” to be adopted -with a view to it. I am anxious, however, to
reserve my freedom of action, as well as of speech, [to thejextent which I will,
with your leave, endeavour to describe.
With regard to the 6th article in the programme, that “the State or the
local authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of children of
suitable age, not otherwise receiving education,” I give in my adhesion to
the principle involved. I confess I have tried hard to escape the necessity
of acceding to a resort to compulsion in furtherance of the end we have in
view, and have been driven only by the force of facts to surrender my
objections to it. Consequently, I am a little more sensitive on this point
than on others, and I can easily imagine modes of compulsion resorted to
which I could not bring my mind to approve. I wish, therefore, while
agreeing to the principle, to refrain from committing myself beforehand to
any particular scheme for carrying it into effect.
�u
As to free. admission to all schools aided by local rates, I suggest that the
provision should be coupled with this condition : That in every case in which
a school is rate-supported, it should be by a separate rate, to be called a
“ SCHOOL RATE.” In order to prevent that non-appreciation of education
which would inevitably come of the idea that it can be got for nothing, every
ratepayer should be made to understand distinctly that, in availing himself
of a free school for his children, he is but receiving back in value that which
in proportion to his means he has paid for. He will readily understand and
feel this, if he is periodically called upon to pay a specific rate for the purpose,
and I think he will be the less disposed to trifle with the right he has thus
acquired.
My chief anxiety, however, is to guard myself from being committed,
under the fourth article of the programme, to conclusions which in my
honest judgment I reject. In that article, as now worded, I thoroughly
concur. It is of the utmost importance that schools aided by local rates shaU
be unsectarian. Denominational education I take to be the greatest obstacle
to National education. It causes an enormous waste of teaching power. It
misleads a large proportion of the public as to the true end of public schools,
and it serves to stereotype instead of softening down religious disctinctions. I
do not believe it to be in any sense necessary. The public, generally, do not
care to perpetuate it. The demand for it is almost exclusively a clerical
demand, and I think the time is come for attempting to get rid of it—
cautiously and gradually, of course, but, in due time, effectually. But whilst
I attach high importance to unsectarian education, I am bound to say that I do
not feel obliged to exclude the religious element from rate-supported schools.
1 would not insist upon it as a condition of receiving public aid, but neither
would I insist upon its being eliminated from primary education. Thus
much, I think, might be safely left to the decision of the local authorities—
to be authorised to open and close their schools, if they please, with some
catholic form of devotion, and to adopt the Bible as one of the books to be
read; of course, protecting every parent from being compelled to subject his
children to either. My reason is this : I feel convinced that if by “unsectarian” schools, the interpretation is to be the rigid exclusion of all
religion from the schools, the nation will lose the very best teachers, for,
ceeteris paribus, they are the best teachers who bring a religious spirit and
motive to their work. I am sure the working classes, as a body, would not
care to shut out Christianity altogether from the schools to which they send
their children. I think it would be a mistake so tightly to tie up the hands
of teachers as to make all reference to the great facts aud precepts of
Christianity a forbidden thing to them. At any rate, it might well be left to
the local authorities to exercise their free choice in the matter. Such being
my opinion, I beg to hold myself uncommitted to the article in question, if
by the epithet “unsectarian” be meant “ necessarily and exclusively secular. ”
�15
I have no objection to give public aid to schools confined to secular educa
tion ; but I do not think it would be wise to impose upon local authorities the
obligation to shut out the religious element to this extent.
Pardon the liberty I have taken, and believe me to be,
,
Dear Mr. Dixon,
Yours, very faithfully,
EDWARD MIALL.
George Dixox, Esq., M.P.
From J. C. Buchnaster, Esq.
St. John’s Hill, Wandsworth, S.W., October lltli, 1869.
Dear Sir,
I regret very much that I am quite unable to accept your
invitation for the 13th. I cheerfully give my adhesion to the general principles
of the Education League, because I believe it offers the only equitable solution
of the educational difficulty. I wish the working classes (who are mostly
interested in this matter) would give some expression of opinion on the
subject, so as to help you and others in Parliament to obtain a national system
of education. Hitherto all our arrangements for the education of the children
of the working classes have been settled by the political influence of religious
parties, and, to avoid as much as possible all difficulty, every denomination has
been tempted to receive,' State assistance. The result is a great waste of
educational effort. I frequently find two and three schools in places with a
population scarcely sufficient to maintain one with efficiency. We have the same
number of inspectors without any concert with each other, going every year
to the same place to do precisely the same work. Ever since the Committee
of Council came into existence I have been in various ways connected with
the present system, and I believe it was the only scheme at that time capable
of meeting the enormous difficulties and resistance of religious bodies. This
opposition, controlled, as it appeared to me, by no reason, was a great national
calamity, and a source of much sorrow. I have carefully watched and taken
part in the working of the present system, and I am reluctantly compelled to
admit that the denominational system fails to accomplish its object. T have
been for several years Churchwarden of the parish in which I reside. I have
taught in elementary schools aided by the State, and Sunday schools, and
when at home I go regularly to church on Sunday, and at the corner of almost
every street I see a number of men with short pipes and unlaced boots, whose
faces twenty years ago were familiar to me as pupils in the parish school and
Sunday school. Why don’t they go to some place of religious worship ? When
at the parish school theyheard prayers and scripture lessons every morning from
students in the Training College—twice or three times a week lessons in the
Catechism and Liturgy from the curate or vicar—twice on Sunday religious
instruction in the Sunday school and two sermons; and where is the result of
�16
all this in the after life and character of the pupils ? If a purely secular
system had been inaugurated by the minutes of 1846 and 1847 this indiffer
ence to religious worship and conduct would have been charged on that
system. Some time ago I made enquiries, as far as I was able, as to the
practical result of the religious instruction given in our parish schools. 120
pupils were grown up and still living in the parish ; some of them married,
with children passing through the same course of religious instruction. Only
nine were in the habit of attending any place of worship regularly, and two
of these were paid singers. Ninety, so far as I could learn, had never been
either to church or chapel since they earned their own living, except to a
wedding or a baptism. The complaint that the working classes as a rule never
go to any place of worship is, I fear, a sad reality; but where is the result of all
our denominational teaching, and religious instruction? Theology and
Scripture proofs of various doctrines are no doubt taught in most of our
schools, but religion is not taught, and cannot be taught. The one is a
science, the other a sentiment; and we have been mistaking the one for the
other. You must not infer from this that I am insensible to the great
blessings of a religious life; but the teaching of dogmatic theology never
secures it. The tone and atmosphere of a school-room should stand in contrast
with the wretched dirty homes from which many of the children come. They
should be surrounded, as far as possible, with everything which tends to
soften and refine their hearts and feelings ; for it is through the senses that
the better impulses of our nature are called into activity and life. We want
clean and cheerful school-rooms, with good pictures on the walls, and specimens
of good art, and these may now be obtained at a small cost. The obstacle in
the way of progress is the ever active spirit which seeks to obtain supporters
to particular views and disciples for particular sects. The love of power un
consciously takes the semblance of religious anxiety, and every man acts as
if he alone had the true faith which ought to be taught to the young. The
only practical way is for the State to restrict itself to teaching those truths
upon which we all agree. All knowledge which is cognisable by our senses
may be safely taught at the public expense. It is only when we leave the
things of this world, and enter upon the consideration of those of the next,
that we lose the means of deciding who is right and who is wrong.
But I
think we must all agree that the more perfectly men are educated in a
knowledge of undisputed truths the better they will be prepared for the. study
of Divine truth. This is most assuredly the basis upon which we ought to
start. Society and human nature must be taken as it is, and not as some
think it should be. For these and other reasons I shall have much pleasure
in rendering what assistance I can in promoting the objects you have in view.
Yours truly,
J. C. BUCKMASTER.
George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
�17
From the Marquis of Lome, M.P. for Argyleshire.
The Queen’s Hotel, Glasgow, Sept. 17th, 1869.
Dear Mr. Dixon,
Your very kind letter has only just reached me, and I
therefore hope you will excuse my apparent neglect in not having answered
before this.
1 shall not be able, I am very sorry to say, to attend the meeting, as I
mean to spend the time between this and November in Ireland.
With many thanks,
Believe me,
Yours very truly,
LORNE.
To George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
From the Rev. Charles Kingsley.
Eversley Rectory, Winchfield, Sep. 17th, 1869.
My dear Sir,
I am still more sorry that I cannot attend your meeting on
reading through your Education Society’s Report. It seems to me a con
vincing proof that the voluntary denominational system is in great towns a
failure, and unless you forbid me, I shall use its statistics to that effect at
Bristol. That it is a failure in country parishes I know from 27 years’
experience as a parson.
I remain,
Your much obliged,
C. KINGSLEY.
I am much gratified by finding in your second Education League list so
many names personally dear to me, and so many of my own cloth.
From Sir Henry A. Hoare, M.P. for Chelsea.
*
Stourhead, Bath, 17th Sep. 1869.
Dear Mr. Dixon,
I received yours of the loth this morning. I cannot, as I
told you in town, undertake to be present in Birmingham on the 12th and
following day, but I shall be truly glad to hear that the General Meeting has
done something.
I do hope that with respect to the principle of compulsion there will be no
faint-heartedness, and no dilution whatsoever of the power to enforce
attendance.
I remain,
Yours very truly,
HENRY A. HOARE.
»
B
�18
From Professor Huxley.
Swanage, Dorset, September 21, 1869.
My dear Sir,
I received your letter of the 17th yesterday, after I had.
written a reply to that of earlier date.
I wish again to say how very sorry I am I cannot do what you and the
Committee desire of me ; but not being a bird, as Mr. Boyle Poach said, I
cannot be in two places at once, and I am bound to be lecturing in London on
both the twelfth and the thirteenth of October.
I am, very faithfully, yours,
T. W. HUXLEY.
To George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
From Dr. Schmitz.
The London International College,
Spring Grove, Middlesex, W., Sep. 16th, 1869.
Dear Sir,
It would give me the greatest pleasure at the approaching
Meeting of the National Education League, at Birmingham, to read a paper
on the great necessity there is in this country for compulsory education, a
subject upon which I feel very strongly, but unfortunately the time of the
meeting coincides with the reassembling of our College, so that it is even
more than doubtful whether I shall be able to attend the meeting.
I am extremely sorry, therefore, that I am unable to have the honour
which your Committee has assigned to me, by inviting me to prepare a paper
for the occasion.
I am, dear Sir, yours truly,
L. SCHMITZ.
From E. H. Brodie, Esq., Inspector of Schools.
Education Department, Council Office, Downing Street, London,
September 29th, 1869.
Dear Sir,
It is with the greatest regret that I write to say that I am
unable to attend the meeting of the National Education League, at
Birmingham.
My official engagements for October are heavy and numerous, and I cannot
spare even half-a-day.
I shall read the newspaper accounts of the meeting with the deepest
interest.
�19
After 10| years’ experience of the present system of education, I have
quite come to the conclusion that the poor both are not and never will be
reached by it, except very partially, especially in our large towns, so fruitful
of the criminal class. Assuring you of my sincerest sympathy for the cause,
and regretting my unavoidable absence,
I remain, dear Sir,
Faithful yours,
E. H. BRODIE.
To Jesse Collings, Esq.
From P. A. Taylor, Esq., M.P. for Leicester.
Aubrey House, Notting Hill, W., October 9th, 1869.
My dear Mr. Dixon,
I am sony that it will not be in my power to attend the
Conference next week.
Do not attribute my absence to any lukewarmness in the cause.
Of all the great reforms we have before us, this is perhaps the greatest.
I ain entirely at one with your programme.
You may rely on my humble support on all occasions.
&
1
Yours truly,
P. A. TAYLOR.
George Dixon, Esq., M.P.
From an oversight the following important letter was not read
at the meeting.
From the Rev. J. J. Brawn.
Birmingham, 8th Oct., 1869.
My dear Sir,
I beg to inform you that at the Autumnal Session of the
Baptist Union, held at Leicester on the 7th Oct. instant, the following
Resolution was adopted:
“That this Union, without pledging itself to the support of the programme
of the National Education League, hereby requests the Chairman (Dr. Brock)
and Secretary (Rev. J. H. Millard, B.A., Huntingdon), with the Revs. Drs.
Underwood and Haycroft, J. Bigwood, and J. J. Brown, to act as its repre
sentatives at the General Meeting to be held under the auspices of the League
next week at Birmingham.”
I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
J. J. BROWN.
To Francis Adams, Esq.
�20
From Blanchard Jerrold, Esq.
SCHOOLS OF SKILL.
Reform Club, S.W., Oct. 13, 1869.
Sir,
Being unavoidably detained away from the meetings of the
League by professional duties, the Executive will, I trust, permit me to state
in a letter the heads of the subject I was anxious to submit viva voce to the
friends of popular education who are at this moment assembled at Birmingham.
It seems to be pretty generally agreed that the distress under wdiich so
many thousands of our fellow countrymen are suffering is caused, not by over
population, but by a superabundance of that labour which the continual
extension of machinery has depreciated. The demand for unskilled labour
is eVer on the decline—a fact on which we should have every reason to
congratulate ourselves if the instruction of labour were keeping pace with
the spread of machinery. But, unfortunately, while the inventive genius of
our race and the energy of our capitalists have given no truce to time, the
friends of popular education have been squabbling all the while because they
go different ways on Sundays—unmindful of Farquhar’s warning. Hence the
growth of blind Labour in the face of the Machine, its mighty and uncon
querable rival ; and hence the increase of pauperism, and of that saddest
condition of life—work w'ithout hope, which “ draws nectar in a sieve.”
The point on wdiich I am anxious to insist, and which will, I am sure, find a
wide acceptance in the Midlands, is this. The superabundance of blind labour
being the cause of the wide-spread distress and heavy poor rates that afflict and
fetter us, our first care must be to teach skill. It is because skill and taste are
■wide-spread among the working population of France that our neighbours
have not the parallel of those townships of even misery wdiich are black spots
upon the map of every considerable city in this kingdom. In the front of the
education movement Trade Schools must be placed. The State is bound to
see that every child is duly provided for the battle of life with those doughty
weapons, the three R’s. Granted. But surely the first duty society owes to
the child is to fortify it so as to assure it, at maturity, the self-dependent
strength of perfect citizenship. The children of the poor should first be taught
some form of skill by the exercise of wdiich they may raise themselves out of
the slough of poverty to which the untutored labour of their parents has sunk
them.
Had the Ragged Schools been sound trade schools, less given to the Old
Hundredth and more to the profitable methods of bread-earning, they would
have effected more good in city lanes and alleys than they can fairly claim to
have done with the teaching of the three R’s.
If the schoolmaster of the poor were himself re-educated, and taught to
implant in his pale scholars the art of living by w’ork—if the primary school
�were a school of skill, as well as one of catechism—the daily practice of industry
with intelligence would strengthen the heart while it informed the hand, and
we should be attending prosperously to
“ The kindred points of Heaven and Home.”
I have honour to remain, Sir,
Your faithful servant,
BLANCHARD JERROLD.
To Francis Adams, Esq.,
Secretary of the National Education League.
Letters expressing regret at not being able to attend were also
received from the following members of the League :—
Jacob Bright, M.P.
Colonel Sykes, M.P.
Josh. Grieve, M.P.
George Melly, M.P.
Peter Rylands, M.P.
James Howard, M.P.
Thomas Hughes, M.P.
P. H. Muntz, M.P.
Sir Sydney Waterlow, M.P.
Captain Sherard Osborne.
Sir John Lubbock.
Dr. Michael Foster.
Russell Martineau.
Rev. George Style.
Professor Roscoe.
Professor Jevons.
John E. Gray.
Dr. Schmitz.
Professor Leone Levi.
Mr. Edwin A. Abbott.
Sir John Bowring.
Mr. Samuel Smiles.
Rev. Charles Voysey.
Hon. George Howard.
Dr. John Shortt.
Mr. M. D. Conway.
Dr. Gotch.
�22
REPORT OF THE PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE.
•
Mr. Jesse Collings (Honorary Secretary) read the following
Report of the Provisional Committee :—
The Provisional Committee think it desirable to lay before the
first meeting of members a brief statement of the reasons
which led to the formation of the National Education League,
the object of the Association, and the steps which have been taken
towards its organization.
On all hands it has long since been admitted that the present
system of education fails to meet the requirements of the country,
that voluntary efforts reach only the richer districts, and these
imperfectly, and that the poorer districts are left practically
uncared for, Government aid being wholly dependent upon
previous local expenditure.
Recent enquiries prove that even in districts best provided
with educational means, the real value of these means is greatly
below what is was supposed to be. The reports of the Manchester
Education Aid Society, and of the Birmingham Education Society,
for instance, reveal a state of things calculated to arrest attention
and excite alarm.
An enquiry instituted by the Manchester Society showed that
in Manchester and Salford the number of children of all classes,
between three years and twelve years, was 100,000. Of these
only 55,000 were on the books of public elementary schools, and
of this latter number the average attendance was but 38,000.
In Birmingham, out of 35,018 children between the ages of
three and twelve visited by the agents of the Education Society,
only 15,490 were at school. Of 45,056 children between three
and fifteen years, 17,023 were at school, 6,337 at work, and 21,696
were neither at school nor at work. Of the 17,023 who were at
school, 10,890 were under nine years of age.
The results of such education as had been given were shown to
be equally unsatisfactory.
In Manchester, in 1,916 families visited, there were, 1,660
persons between the ages of twelve and twenty. Of these, 759
were unable to read. Out of 1,672 fathers, 465 could not
p
�23
read, and out of 1,857 mothers the number unable to read
was 815.
In Birmingham, Mr. Long, one of the masters of the
Worcester, Lichfield, and Hereford Diocesan Training College,
visited a number of the manufactories (fairly chosen to represent
the whole), and examined 988 young persons between the ages of
thirteen and twenty-one. His report was that, “ in reading and
writing nearly one-half of the whole number examined do nothing,
or next to nothing, and only one-third do at all well. In
arithmetic and general knowledge more than three-fourths fail, or
nearly so; and only one in twenty shows anything like a
satisfactory degree of attainment.”
The facts thus ascertained are corroborated by the statements
of the Bight Hon. H. A. Bruce, in a recent address, in which,
quoting from a report of the London Diocesan Board of Education,
he said there were in London from 150 thousand to 200 thousand
children without the means of education, and that during the
preceding five or six years all that had been done served only to
prevent retrogression.
The report of the Committee of Council (1867-8, p. xxiii.)
demonstrates the inefficiency of instruction even in the best
primary schools—those under Government inspection. Of the
children attending a large proportion are declared to be unfit for
examination; and of those examined above ten years of age,
“ only 3.13 per cent, passed in the three higher standards without
failure” : these standards being of an extremely elementary
character.
These and other facts exhibiting the want of educational means
and the defective quality of instruction actually given, naturally
attracted special attention at the moment when, by an extension of
the franchise, a great change had been made in the distribution of
political power. Persons who took an interest in education were
led to the enquiry whether the present voluntary system, based
upon denominational effort, could by any possibility cover in the
future, with increasing population and more urgent demands, the
ground which it had failed to cover in the past. Conceding to the
voluntary principle the utmost conceivable measure of success, the
�24
advocates of education were further driven to enquire whether,
considering the new conditions of political arrangements, and the
rate at which education has hitherto progressed, it would be
prudent to wait until the present system has received a longer
trial. Educational reformers felt themselves compelled to ask yet
another question, whether, considering the right of every child to
education, it would be just to persevere in a system which,
however benevolent its motive and however strenuous its
exertions, experience has proved to reach only part of the children
having the right to instruction, and to deal imperfectly with those
whom it succeeded in reaching.
To all these questions only negative replies could be given.
The advocates of extended education found themselves obliged to
conclude that the voluntary system had failed to meet the wants
of the country, that considering the new political conditions re
sulting from an extended franchise, it would be imprudent to
persevere with a system admitted to be inadequate, and that con
sidering the right of all children to instruction, a national system
was demanded not less by justice than by expediency.
The result of these convictions was the introduction of a bill,
promoted by an influential Committee emanating from the Man
chester Education Aid Society, permitting the imposition of local
rates for the maintenance of schools. A permissive measure being,
however, felt to be inadequate, a subsequent bill was introduced,
allowing Government to compel the imposition of local educational
rates whcrs these might be found necessary. These bills were intro
duced by Mr. Bruce and Mr. Forster, and at the same time it was
intended that Mr. (now Sir Thomas) Bazley should move clauses
enforcing attendance at school.
The measures above mentioned mark the advance of public
opinion. The formation of the National Education League in
dicates a still greater and more important progress. It was felt
by several gentlemen in Birmingham that the time had come for
the establishment of an organisation uniting all those, throughout
the country, who desired to promote a really national system of
education, reaching all places unprovided for, based as to means
upon local taxation supplemented by imperial grants, becoming,
�25
therefore, unsectarian and free, and having the power to compel
attendance as the only way of overcoming parental neglect.
Accordingly, at the beginning of this year, the National
* Education League was formed upon the following basis, and upon
this basis only, which the founders regard as fundamental, were
educational reformers throughout the country invited to join the
League.
Object :
The establishment of a system which shall secure the Education of
every Child in England and Wales.*
Means :
1. —Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that sufficient
School Accommodation is provided for every Child in their
district.
2. —The cost of founding and maintaining such Schools as may be
recpiired shall be provided out of Local Rates, supplemented
by Government Grants.
8.—All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the manage
ment of Locul Authorities and subject to Government
Inspection.
Jf..—All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be Unsectarian.
5. —To all Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free.
6. —School Accommodation being provided, the State or the Local
Authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of
children of suitable age not otherwise receiving education.
That this movement was happily timed, at the moment when
opinion was ripe for it, is proved by the fact that although no
public meeting has been held by the League, no means adopted but
the circulation of the scheme recorded above, near two thousand
five hundred- persons of influence, including forty members of the
* A slight verbal alteration was agreed, to at a meeting of the Provisional
Committee, held 22nd Sept., viz., that in all future circulars, addresses, &c.,
the words “ in the country" should be substituted for the words “ in England
and Wales.”
�House of Commons, and. between three and four hundred ministers
of religion, have already joined the League, by formally assenting
to its principles; and this number is daily increasing.
It is now proposed to complete the working organisation of the
League by electing a Council and an Executive Committee, charged
with the transaction of general business, the appointment of officers,
and the formation of branch committees. The last-mentioned work
has already been commenced. It was intended that it should have
been deferred until after this meeting ; but the response to the
invitation of the Provisional Committee was so great that it was
found necessary to form branch committees without delay, and
branches have accordingly been constituted in London, Manchester,
Bradford, Bristol, Leicester, Sheffield, Liverpool, Leeds, Hudders
field, Exeter, Bath, Warrington, Devonport, Carlisle, Merthyr
Tydvil, Wednesbury, South Hants, and the Isle of Wight.
With reference to the funds necessary for carrying on the
operations of the League, it was thought desirable to abstain from
issuing an appeal until after the general meeting of members ; but
a number of gentlemen, having the work strongly at heart, have
offered the sums undermentioned, payable by annual instalments
extending over ten years :—
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
G. Dixon, M.P., Birmingham....................... .£1,000
A. Brogden, M.P., Ulverstone ................... 1,000
E. L. Chance, Birmingham........................... 1,000
J. Chamberlain, Birmingham ....................... 1,000
Joseph Chamberlain, Birmingham ............... 1,000
G. B. Lloyd, Birmingham ........................... 1,000
A. Field, Birmingham.................................... 1,000
Follett Osler, F.E.S., Birmingham............... 1,000
W. Middlemore, Birmingham....................... 1,000
Archibald Kenrick, Birmingham ............... 1,000
F. S. Bolton, Birmingham ............................ 1,000
Edmund Potter, M.P., Carlisle...................
500
T. Kenrick, Birmingham................................
500
William Kenrick, Birmingham ...................
500
J. Arthur Kenrick, Birmingham...................
500
�27
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
John Jaffray, Birmingham...........................
Harold Lees, Manchester................................
William Dudley, Birmingham ...................
John Webster, Birmingham .......................
H. Swinglehurst, Milnthorpe .......................
500
400
200
200
110
As regards the general meeting of members, it is thought
desirable that it shall be held annually in different parts of the
kingdom. It is proposed that the Council, to be chosen at each
annual meeting, shall be a consultative body, assembling at such
intervals and in such places as may be required, and shall include
all Members of Parliament who may join the League, large donors
to the funds of the association, and at least one representative of
each branch committee. A body so numerous, and consisting of
persons so widely scattered, being obviously too large for the
transaction of current business, it is proposed to appoint an Execu
tive Committee, to whom, subject to resolutions of the annual
meeting, and the general revision of the Council, shall be entrusted
the conduct of the business of the League. This Committee will
meet at the central offices of the League in Birmingham.
The work of the League will be to collect and disseminate
through its various branches, by means of meetings, publications,
lectures, and otherwise, all available information on the subject of
education; to stimulate discussion upon educational reforms; to
create and guide public opinion; to influence Members of Parlia
ment through their constituents ; to hasten and strengthen the
action of Government; and to promote the adoption by the Legis
lature of measures which shall ensure the education of every child
in the country, and which shall provide instruction so accessible
and so graduated that the child of the poorest artisan shall have it
within his power to fit himself for any position capable of being
attained by a citizen of the United Kingdom. To this work the
members of the League have set themselves with a serious convic
tion of its vital importance, and under a sense of personal
responsibility and public duty ; and to this work they intend to
remain constant until it is accomplished, and the reproach and curse
Qf ignorance is wiped away from the land.
�28
TREASURER’S REPORT.
Birmingham, October 8th, 1869.
I have to report that the donations and subscriptions already
received amount to £1,212 10s. 6d. The orders made upon me for
payments are £418 19s., leaving a balance in hand of £793 11s. 6d.
There are liabilities incurred amounting to nearly £600, including
the expenses incidental to the general meeting, and the publication
•of the report of its proceedings.
JOHN JAFFRAY, Treasurer.
The Venerable Archdeacon Sandford said : Mr. Chairman and
gentlemen,—I have been requested to move the adoption of the
concise and lucid and complete report which has just been read to
you; and when I tell you that I am labouring under a serious
attack of indisposition, I am sure you will feel that my presence on
this platform to-day is a proof of my deep and continued interest
in the all-important question which we are met to discuss. I
deeply feel the honour which on this occasion is conferred on me,
and the responsibility which I incur in coming forward to move
the adoption of the report, and I wish to keep distinctly before
my own mind and before yours the object proposed by this Educa
tion League, which justifies, I believe, the course that you and I are
about to adopt. It is to provide the means of education for every
child in England and Wales—that is, to supply education, the best
gift that can be bestowed on any human being, to the multitudes
of the children of our native land who are at this moment ignorant
of those essential truths which are to qualify them for the duties
of this life and for the hopes of a better. I remember hearing it
observed by the late Lord Brougham, some years ago, in the House
of Lords, that he had never met a Frenchman of any condition or
occupation whatever, who did not consider that, after the Emperor,
he was himself the fittest and the sole man to solve the constitu
tional difficulties, and to work out the political destiny of his country.
Now, I am not so aspiring or so self-reliant, but you can understand
that no man can have been connected as a pastor of the people, as
I have been, for more than thirty years, with the education of the
�29
children of the poor, without having rny own views upon this allmomentous subject, and even believing that I could suggest to you
a scheme preferable to that which has been elaborated by my friend
Mr. Dixon and his provisional committee. But in our excellent
chairman we have a commander-in-chief who is not only sagacious
and vigilant, but whom I have found to be inexorable, and what
ever discussions have taken place in the Council, he will allow no
divergence of opinion whatever on the eve of battle and in the
face of the foe. To this very judicious decision I most meekly
submit. My consolation is the belief that in the discussions
which will ensue there will be found gentlemen less compliant,
who will be sure to bring forward and to press those very
objections and those very preferences which have occurred to
myself. Gentlemen, we stand in the presence of an overwhelming
necessity, and of a great national danger, and that necessity
and that danger are involved in the fact, as you have heard
in this luminous report, that there are thousands and tens of
thousands of the children of our people, for whom we are responsible
in the sight of God and man, who are the outcasts, the pariahs of
society, who are growing up without any moral influences whatever
being brought to bear on them, and who in the course of a few
years must constitute a very large and important portion of the
community, invested with legal rights, which they may use for the
injury of themselves and the destruction of society. Now, that is
my reason for keeping back any preferences and objects of my own,
and coming forward, as I believe I ought to do on this occasion,
to endorse the report which has been read to you. What
we want to do is to give the means of education to all those
wretched children ; and it is quite clear from what has been uttered
here, and what has appeared in many and voluminous publications,
that the voluntary system, however admirable it may be, has utterly
failed in providing what is required ; yes, and the character of the
education imparted is very deficient indeed. Well, now, to secure
universal education for our people, I have long believed that we
must have compulsory education. And this is no new light that
has broken upon me since this Education League was proposed,
because I advocated compulsory education months ago, at Man
�30
Chester. Well, then, to have compulsory education you must have
a rate, and to have a rate you must have—I will not call it
secular education, for I abhor the term, and I do not like the
phrase adopted in this report, “ unsectarian education;” I very
much prefer the term “ undenominational education.” It is quite
dear that in a country like ours, with our various denominational
churches, and with our many differences in point of religion, it
will be quite impossible to have an education supported by rate
unless you have the teaching undenominational. Now, with regard
to the rate itself, I believe—and I know that it is the conviction
of many of the inspectors of schools in the country-—that it is
required to compel employers, and to compel parents who do not
discharge their duties in this respect, to bear their portion of the
burden. I am quite satisfied that very many severe things will be
said of your platform. We shall be told, no doubt, that it is a
godless scheme; that it is a revolutionary scheme; that it is a
scheme utterly unsuited to the taste and the feeling of the British
people; that it cannot succeed, that if it is carried out it will flood
the land with a number of atheists and infidels, who will be the
curse of society; that we are departing from the course of duty;
yes, and that we deserve very severe vituperation ourselves because
we have the effrontery to propose this scheme to the public. All I
can say is this, that after a man at my time of life has been pronounced
sacrilegious and an atheist because he has presumed to utter an
opinion not upon a religious but upon a political question, he
becomes rather callous, and is prepared to do his duty, and, if needs
must be, to stand alone, whatever may be said of him by ignorant and
interested parties. I am now about to allude, not towhat is propounded
in this place, and of which for the first time I received a statement
to-day, but to another scheme, which was brought forward a little
time ago with a great flourish of trumpets; and that is, that all
religious sections of the kingdom should be paid to bring up the
children of their denominations in the strictest tenets of their own
faith. Now I confess that I utterly object to that proposition. I
have a very great and affectionate respect for my friend Mr. Vince;
I have an equally great and affectionate respect for my friend
Mr. George Dawson; but I am not prepared to endorse their
�31
theological opinions or to pay for them, for my theological
platform is different from theirs. This scheme, as it appears to me,
proposes that the children of Mr. Vince’s denomination should be
taught, and that the State should provide the means—I suppose
by rate—for their being taught, that Christian baptism is a
delusion ■ and that the children of the school of Mr. Dawson
should be taught that the Christian priesthood is a sham ; yes, and
that the children in Jewish schools should be taught, at the
expense of the State, that the author of Christianity himself is an
impostor. I believe that the proposal of the League, which, at what
ever risk, I am prepared to endorse, shows me to be a much more
sound and conscientious Churchman than he is who professes the
other scheme, which, in my belief, could only tend to per
petuate and to intensify those divisions among Christians which
are, and which have been so long, the bane and the scandal of
Christendom. There are other speakers of far more note and of
far more weight than myself who are to address this meeting, and
therefore I will not trouble you with any further observations of
my own. I am to be followed by one that cometh out of Samaria,
which has supplied redoubtable champions in former times ; and I
am proud and happy to be associated with Mr. Dawson in this work
of education. It is, of course, a most unnatural and a most
monstrous conjunction, and one which twenty years ago, perhaps
ten years ago, would have been quite impossible ; when I, perhaps,
■considered Mr. Dawson somewhat of a firebrand, and he used to
remark on me as an ornamental, but not very useful, appendage to
the Church. Ah ! but, God be praised! things move rapidly in
the present day: to that consummation which as citizens and as
Christians we all ought to desire, when good men of all parties
and of all religious creeds can unite together in the cause of a com
mon country and a common humanity. I have had brought strongly
before me the teachings and example of one who, though himself
born and bred a Jew, though he maintained that salvation was of
the Jews, though he protested against every conceivable form of
error, and at last died a martyr to the truth, yet was on friendly
terms with Samaritans, and has set forth in the Book of Books a
Samaritan as the grand type of practical benevolence for the imita
�tion and admiration of the Church and the world throughout all
time. Before that sublime and magnificent example I bow in loving
adoration. I wish to be imbued with that spirit. I wish to tread
in those footprints, and therefore I rejoice to-day to come forward
to co-operate with my Nonconformist brethren in an endeavour to
redeem and to raise the outcasts of society who are left at this
moment lying in wretchedness and in the dark, and who, but for
this intervention, I believe in God, would be left to perish without
instruction, without moral instincts, without any moral or religious
knowledge at all.
Mr. George Dawson : It is not for me to enter into the reasons
why I have been asked to second this resolution, though I guess it
is because on this question there is no man that holds more extreme
■views than I do. It is certain that if I state my views, I shall
state all yours, and, with regard to many of you, a great deal more
besides. Courtesy demands that I should reciprocate the kindness
of the Archdeacon. He has told you he has ceased to regard me as
a firebrand. Well, I have long since ceased to regard him as
a fogey. We have made mutual concessions ; and it gives me,
as I am sure it gives you, pleasure to see a man so eminent in
the Church discharge the duty of a true leader of the people,
opening his eyes widely and clearly to know the signs of the
times; for his Master and mine pronounced a severe condemna
tion upon those leaders of the people who are unable to know the
signs of the times. One word of congratulation, and that is that
we have advanced. We have not to argue that the poor have a right
to be educated, or ought to be educated. That is gone by. So far,
we have got through the meeting without any gentleman telling
us the difference between instruction and education. That used to
be a stumbling block. We have got to this proposition—th at every
child in this nation ought to be taught. We hold the doctrine of the
family life of the nation. I believe the majority of you do feel as
I do, that every ragged, filthy, untaught, cursing, blaspheming child
should be looked upon as a child of our household, and should bring
shame and disgrace upon us. I would that at heart you and I could
say with him of old, “ Mine eyes run down with tears for the
iniquities of my people.” But at all events we have come to see
�33
that there is no human remedy hut education, and that education
is always good, he it little or much. We dismiss Mr. Alexander
Pope’s couplet about drinking deep or not touching at all as a piece
of antiquated nonsense. We bow, with great respect, those clergy
out of our road, represented by one in this town, who once said
that unless he could have religious education he would shut up the
schoolhouse, put the key in his pocket, and walk away. We have
most of us got rid of that foolish distinction between sacred
and secular. We believe all knowledge to be of God, and
therefore towards good. I believe that he who teaches two
letters of the alphabet to a child who yesterday knew but one, has
furthered that child’s chances of future instruction, and of all
well-being. These things we have not to discuss. A word of
warning : I shall go ' further than you will follow; but, in a
discussion like this, ill-temper would he out of place, and large
allowance for individualism is what we require. We all mean the
same thing, only we travel different paces. We all wish to lay the
foundation of a national educational system. It must be laid with
lucid simplicity and with great breadth, to bear the strain of the
future. We are not here to patch existing systems—-to patch the
garment of semi-charity and semi-ecclesiasticism, which forms a
large part of the present education, but to lay a broad system, by
declaring at once that the world—by which I mean all people that
do not call themselves the Church—has its rights, and that the
world is not to be governed by the good people in anything which
belongs entirely to the world. All men whose opinion is of valuehave come to know that what for present purposes we call secular
education is an affair of the world—an affair of the nation—acting
through its Government. We have got rid of some bugbears—we
are no longer afraid of the Government. This used to be, perhaps, a
necessity; but it is a disgrace if it remains so now. What is the
Government of this country 1 It is the nation itself. There is no
antagonism between the people and the Government now. We
are not here to bury the voluntary principle—its great supporters
buried it long ago. We have lived to hear the recantations of a
Miall and a Baines—to hear them declare that their mistakes about
voluntaryism were what we all knew them to be—well
c
�34
intentioned ; and that voluntaryism is quite an inadequate basis for
a national system. A national system must be laid in simplicity,
and it must be paid for by rates. I am a lover of rates myself. I
was never guilty of that “ ignorant impatience” of taxation which
a great statesman once spoke of. I like to see the tax-gatherer
come, provided the ends to which the taxes are devoted are holy
and noble, and it will be one of the pleasantest sights when the
tax-gatherer comes to lay upon me the noble hand of national com
pulsion, to pay a rate in order that every child in the nation
shall be educated. But, remember, rates mean compulsion. I
hope most of you have done with compulsion as a bugbear. All
life is compulsion. Society is based upon compulsion. What is
government but law made compulsory ? Happy the man who
by-and-by shall escape from the necessities of compulsion, and do
that from the law of liberty which at first he must be made to do
with reluctance. I like rates because they touch everybody,
because I get hold of the fat and selfish manufacturer and
touch him up, because I lay hold of the man that visits no
church and visits no chapel, and make him pay; and I advocate
not only local rates but national taxation for educational purposes.
It is time that a good deal of work that the religious bodies have
burdened themselves with should be given over to the world.
Let society do its own business. What is going on just now is
an operation like what goes on when sheep get mixed. There is
a meeting of shepherds to look over the flocks, and each selects
his own sheep. We have just restored to the Church a sheep
that had got into the State fold. We have handed to the volun
tary principle—to the good people—the Irish Church. Marked
with the sign of the cross, that sheep belonged to the Church, and
it has been restored. Now our turn comes—I mean the world ;
for I never profess anything more than that. Looking over the
Church flock we find a sheep there that belongs to us, and that
is education—theprimary education of the nation. It does not
belong to the Church in any sense—it belongs to the whole
nation. It belongs to the Government, and ought to be done
by the Government. I have no more notion of sectarian
education, or denominational education, in the sense of mere
j
�35
primary instruction, than I have of a denominational wate rcart
or a sectarian vaccinator. What has our history been for years
but the putting of sheep into the right fold ? I am old enough
to remember when nobody could be married except they went
to Church. I sat once at supper with a High Churchman who
asked me whether I was married or not ? I said I was. “ Who
married you ?” I named the person. “ A priest in' the true sue.
cession ?” “ Oh dear, no.” Said he, “You are not married at all.”
I said, “ What am I ?” “ You are only joined together.” “ Well,”
I said, “ as a practical man, for me that will do.” By degrees
society found out that marriage did not belong to priests, and we
established civil marriage. For those who wish to be married in
Church, liberty ; for those who do not, liberty also. Why must
a man be married in the name of a God he does not believe in ?
Why should a Jew be compelled to invoke a Trinity he despises
and abhors ? As to compulsory matters, there is the vaccination
question. Is education, in the sense in which we use the word—the
education about which we are all agreed, the education that relates
to this life—is that a matter that the State should now kindly take
out of the Church’s hand, and do for itself ? I say it is. And
with that education the clergy have no more to do as a matter of
right than the parish doctor or the parish lawyer. I for one am
profoundly thankful to clergy of all sorts for what they have done.
If the squirearchy and the nobility and gentry of England had done
their duty half as well as the clergy, old England would be further
advanced than to be only now laying the foundation stone of a
national system of education. The poor Dissenting minister has
done his duty. He has not had the chances of the Church, but it
was often the poor Nonconformist man who held up the flag of true
liberty, and maintained the fundamental principle of all just poli
tics—“ Do unto others as ye would that they should do
unto you.” Now, however, it is time that the matter should be
taken out of the hands of clergy and ministers. Why should the
Church educate the world in matters about which the world is
entirely capable of looking after itself ? Religious people have quite
enough to do without this. What an advantage it will be to you
Churchmen, if we take all this business, and leave your purse and
�36
your time free ! And, instead of our system being contrary to the
interests of religion, it is the best system for forwarding it. I have
been connected with Sunday schools all my life. We get a child
for an hour and a half every Sunday morning professedly to teach
it religion. The child does not know the alphabet. The hour and
half is spent in the painful attempt to teach it what the world ought
to have done. What an opportunity for those of you who set store
by these things, to pour in the precious dogmas of your theology
into minds which we have made open and receptive ! I have heard
that when the Pope washes the feet of beggars somebody first takes
off the worst of the dirt. We will take these dirty, ignorant children
and take the worst of the dirt off before we hand them over to you
to touch them up with the diaper! To argue that between knowledge
of any kind and true religion there can be any real hostility, would
be to assume that we are speaking to fossils, and not to men who
discern the signs of the times. We want compulsion • we want
rates. If we have rates, we must have free schools ; and if this
system be once adopted, the existing system must go, by a slow,
sure, and I hope, painless form of extinction• and who will regret
it if a wiser thing be put in its place ? For I trust none of you
are idolators, worshippers of mere means. I should be sorry to
think that the interests of your little denominational school weighed
more with you than the interests of the nation. Our people are
ill-taught. Our children die at a rate which is shameful and dis
graceful. Our people live in filth and disease. Large parts of
our great cities are a shame and disgrace, and the odours of cor
poreal nastiness interfere even with the propagation of the Gospel.
We believe we have a remedy for all this ; and, being an extreme
man, I prophesy that, in the end—and that end not distant—
our schools will be supported by rates • and that means com
pulsion, and it means that the schools must be purely secular. Dis
guise it as you may, to that complexion you must come at last. If
we attempt to make school rates to support denominational schools,
we shall have, in fact, our old friend the church-rates back again,
and some John Giles, of Bungay, will go to prison rather than pay
and members of the Society of Friends will allow their umbrellas
to be seized. It is not pleasant to hear how quietly and coolly
�37
the religions world assumes that it has a right to have its dogmas
and doctrines taught. I and many others begin to doubt whether
we ought to pay for your doctrines. I am a Latitudinarian avowedly.
Why should I pay to have done on the week days what I spend
all my Sundays endeavouring to undo ? Is it not time that the
little children should not be plagued with the reverse of what the
scholarship of England and the right learning of the Church have
shown to be the only things that a scholar can hold ? If gentle
men present can show you that Moses did not write the whole of the
Pentateuch, am I to be compelled to pay for telling children that
he did ? Is it not time that children should not build up what it
will be their first duty when they are older to pull down ? Have
not some of us gone through that bitter and painful process of
taking our fathers’ creed slowly down ? And do we not know what
it costs ? Is it pleasant for a man to have to forsake the creed
of his youth? Is the process so agreeable that it is right to
subject the children of this country to it ? Why am I to pay for
teaching a child—as it is stated in a catechism which I shall not name
—that for His good pleasure and greater glory, God elected certain
people to reprobation ? I am willing to pay for teaching the things
about which we are agreed. When they go out of school you
shepherds can catch them, and take them to the fold. Teach them
what you think proper, but do not ask me to pay for that part.
Short of what I have stated I shall not be satisfied, but I shall
travel with you on the same road as far as you will go with me ;
and I hope you will make allowance for me if I go farther
than you do. Compulsory, national, secular education—that is my
faith.
The resolution adopting the report was then put and carried
unanimously.
APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS, COUNCIL, AND
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., rose to move the appointment of
the officers, Council, and Executive Committee. He said : I must at
once frankly admit that though I have joined the League, I do not,
like some of our friends who have spoken before me, agree with every
�proposition that it has laid down. Yet, as I say, I have joined the
League, and having joined it faithfully and loyally, I mean to do
what I can to assist it upon its hroad and general principles, hut
still holding myself free to go even farther than the League itself.
I, like my friend Mr. Dawson, am an extreme man; hut perhaps
I view the question from a different point from that of any other
speaker. I am hound to view it more as a representative of
the people than as a philanthropist, and I look upon the
question as one of great political and social moment. It is a
political question of great urgency and great danger; and my
feeling in joining the League was that by meetings and con
ferences like the present public opinion may be fully and clearly
expressed, and that by it we may be able to force the Govern
ment to give a sound and comprehensive measure of education.
And I say frankly, that to my mind no measure would be
sound or comprehensive or satisfactory which did not at least
go as far as the principles of your League. Upon the political
point of the question, let me say that I look upon the present
state of the country with very great dread. I am not going to
trouble you with statistics, but just to say this : that it is well
known—and it is admitted by men competent to form an
accurate opinion—that of the twenty millions of population in
England and Wales no less than four millions are in a state
of crime, ignorance, misery, vice, and pauperism. Now, what
is the cause of this ? In my opinion it is simply this—that
hitherto education has never touched, or has scarcely touched, the
classes comprised in those four millions. True, there are some few
charitable institutions which have gone below a certain line; but
still there is a hard and fast line below which denominationalism
has never gone—cannot go. And for what reason? Simply
because it is denominational. Denominational institutions are
all supported by the subscriptions of the different sects and by
Government grants, but below that dark black line to which I have
referred there are no subscriptions at all. Denominationalism
cannot permeate to that depth where there is scarcely any religion,
if any at all. Yet I won’t say that there is no religion at all;
for I am convinced that every man has a religion of some sort, if
�39
it is only a strong faith, in another world where, perhaps, there
might he a better chance for him, and where he might change places
with us who are better off. Now, in regard to the line below
which denominationalism does not go, let me say that religious
bodies have never, or at least in very few instances, been able
to get deeper than that line. In Bethnal Green, where there is
a population of 180,000 people, there are only 2,000 people who
are known ever to go to a place of worship. That 2,000 is
just the class which denominationalism can touch, and it
can touch no more. What is the remedy for this ? I believe
it is a purely secular system of education. With a secular
system you may, I believe, carry out education amongst the
classes below the line, and having educated these three or four
millions, surely religious teachers might easily follow. Indeed,
there would be opened up to them an opportunity which they never
had before. But we must have a wide-spread education amongst
these classes to which I refer. Is it not remarkable as a
social question, that in a commercial community like this, with
perfect free trade, strong competition, and the greater part of our
wealth springing from trade—that in such a community four
millions of people should have been so long allowed to remain
in a state of ignorance ? All the results of our labour in that
respect have been lost—completely lost ! Now, how can we cure
this evil? You can only cure it by education. The greater
part of the vice and misery amongst the lower classes arises
simply from ignorance; and it is only by teaching those classes
to help themselves that you will get a cure for the evil. Now, I
am perfectly well aware that a Bill will be brought into the House
of Commons next session, but I am afraid that that Bill—judging
by those who are to frame it—will fall very far short of our expec
tations. I hope, therefore, that those Members of Parliament who
have joined this League will be prepared—for this is not a party
question, and ought not to be made one—to bring in a Bill of their
own, and to force the question to the greatest possible extent. If
we do not accomplish the whole of our object, which is to obtain
a complete system of compulsory, secular, and free education,
we shall at least have made a step towards its attainment.
�40
Concede compulsion, and a free and secular education must
inevitably follow. We have seen how little progress has
been made up till now. In point of fact, as I said before, the
present system has stopped at a certain line. Its results have
increased only five per cent, during the last five years. Look
ing to the increase in population and wealth during that period,
it is a really astounding result. And I am perfectly satisfied
that there the results of the system must rest. When the
different points of the question of compulsory secular education
come to be discussed, I shall be glad to offer opinions; but I may
just say that I myself have worked under compulsion for the last
thirty or forty years. The working of the Factory Acts in
some respects has been very good, but in the matter of education
they have failed most lamentably. And why is that ? Because
we have no free schools to which to send our children. It is a per
fect farce to say to parents “ Educate your children,” when the only
possible way of getting education is by a charge of 2d. per week
upon them. The Factory Acts have completely failed in sending
large numbers of children to school, except in those cases in which
masters have taken a Christian interest in their workpeople and
have provided education for the children. I am perfectly satisfied
that if we determine to bring in a Bill we shall not find the plan of
organization or the settlement of the details to be at all difficult
To my mind, this question comes only second in importance to the
Irish question; and it behoves us therefore to set earnestly and at
once to work. I don’t myself see why we should wait a single
session for the Bill; and if members of Parhament will only work
for it as hard and as zealously as they did over the Bankruptcy Bill
and one or two other measures of last session, the whole thing may
be carried next session. I now beg to move the following formal
resolution :
That the following gentlemen be the officers of the League for
the ensuing year :—
George Dixon, Esq., M.P., Chairman.
Jesse Collings, Esq, Hon. Secretary.
John Jaffray, Esq., Treasurer.
�41
That the Council of the League consist of—
(1)—All Members of the League who are Members of Parliament,
comprising at present: —
The Right Hon. the Earl of Portsmouth
Anstruther, Sir Robert, Bart., M. P. for Fifeshire
Armitstead, G., M.P. for Dundee
Bass, M. Arthur, M.P. for Stafford
Beaumont, Somerset, M.P. for Wakefield
Bright, Jacob, M.P. for Manchester
Brocklehurst, W. C., M.P. for Macclesfield
Brogden, Alexander, M.P. for Wednesbury
Campbell, H., M.P. for Stirling
Carter, R. M., M.P. for Leeds
Clement, W. J., M.P. for Shrewsbury
Dalrymple. Donald, M.P. for Bath
Dilke, Sir Charles Wentworth, Bart., M.P. for Chelsea
Dixon, George, M.P. for Birmingham
Fawcett, H., M.P. for Brighton
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund, M.P. for Caine
Gower, Lord Rowland Leveson, M. P. for Sutherland
Grieve, J. 0., M.P. for Greenock
Grosvenor, Captain The Hon. R. W., M.P. for Westminster
Hoare, Sir Henry A., Bart., M.P. for Chelsea
Howard, James, M.P. for Bedford
Hughes, T., M.P. for Frome
Lome, The Marquis of, M. P. for Argyleshire
Melly, G., M.P. for Stoke-on-Trent
Miall, Edward, M.P. for Bradford
Mitchell, S. A., M.P. for Bridport
Morgan, George Osborn, Q.C., M.P. for Denbeighshire
Morrison, W., M. P. for Plymouth
Mundella, A. J., M.P. for Sheffield
Muntz, P. H., M.P. for Birmingham
Parry, T. L. D. J., M.P. for Carnarvonshire
Platt, J., M.P. for Oldham
Playfair, Dr. Lyon, C. B., M.P. for Edinburgh, &c. Universities.
Potter, Edmund, F.R.S., M.P. for Carlisle.
Price, W. E., M.P. for Tewkesbury.
Price, W. P., M.P. for Gloucester.
Rylands, Peter, M.P. for Warrington.
Samuelson, Bernhard, M.P. for Banbury.
Seely, Charles, M.P. for Nottingham.
Simon, John, Serjeant-at-Law, M.P. for Dewsbury.
�42
Sykes, Col.W.H., F.R.S., F.G.S., F.R.G.S., M.P. for Aberdeen.
Taylor, P.A., M.P. for Leicester.
Wedderburn, Sir David, Bart., M.P. for South Ayrshire.
Williams, Watkin, M.P. for Denbigh.
Winterbotham, H. S. P., M.P. for Stroud.
(2) —AR Donors to the funds of the League of £590. and upwards,
comprising at present: —
Bolton, F. S., Birmingham.
Brogden, A., M.P., Ulverstone.
Chamberlain, J., Moor Green Hall.
Chamberlain, Jos., Birmingham.
Chance, R. L., Birmingham.
Dixon, Geo., M.P., Birmingham.
Field, A., Birmingham.
Jaffray, John, J.P., Birmingham.
Kenrick, A., Birmingham.
Kenrick, J. A., J.P., Birmingham.
Kenrick, T., Birmingham.
Kenrick, Wm., Birmingham.
Lloyd, G. B., Birmingham.
Middlemore, W., Birmingham.
Osler, Clarkson, Birmingham.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Phillips, Aiderman, Birmingham.
Potter, Edmund, M.P., Carlisle.
(3) —One Representative from each Branch of the League ;
And the following ladies and gentlemen, namely:—
Abbott, E. A., M.A., St. John’s Wood, London.
Ackworth, Rev. James, L.L.D., Scarborough.
Albright, Arthur, Edgbaston.
Allman, Professor George J., F.R.S., University of Edinburgh.
Ambler, Councillor John, Walmer Villas, Bradford.
Angus, Rev. Joseph, D.D., Regent’s Park College, London.
Anstey, T. Chisholm, Temple, London.
Applegarth, Robert, Stamford Street, London.
Aveling, Thomas, Mayor of Rochester.
Baines, John, Mayor of Leicester.
Bain, Alexander, Professor of Logic, University of Aberdeen.
Barlow, James Mayor of Bolton.
Barmby, Rev. Goodwyn, Wakefield.
Bazley, Charles H., J.P., Manchester.
�43
Beal, Councillor Michael, Sheffield.
Beales, Edmond, M.A., Lincoln’s Inn, London.
Beard, Bev. Charles, B.A., Liverpool.
Becker, Miss Lydia E., Manchester.
Belsey, F. H., Rochester.
Bennett, J. N., Plymouth.
Bessemer, Henry, Denmark Hill, London.
Best, Hon. and Rev. Samuel, M.A., Andover, Hampshire.
Binns, Rev. William, Devonport.
Birks, Rev. John, Kingswood Parsonage, near Alvechurch.
Bond, Francis T., M.D., Southampton.
Booth, Charles, Liverpool.
Bowring, Sir John, LL.D., Exeter.
Brodie, Dr., Edinburgh.
Brown, John, J.P., Merionethshire.
Brodie, E. H., Inspector of Schools, London.
Brodie, Rev. P. B., Rowington, near Warwick.
Brodrick, the Hon. George, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford.
Brock, G. B., J.P., Swansea.
Brown, Aiderman E. R., Plymouth.
Brown, Potto, Houghton.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Burch, A. E., J.P., Bedford.
Butcher, William, Bristol.
Butler, Mrs., Liverpool.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Grammar School, Bristol.
Campbell, Rev. Dr., Bradford.
Carpenter, Rev. J. Estlin, M.A., Leeds.
Carson, W. H., Warminster.
Chadwick, Edwin, C.B., Mortlake, Surrey.
Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham.
Churchill, Lord A. S., 16, Rutland Gate, London.
Clark, John F., Tarland, Aberdeenshire.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham.
Clarke, E. G., Bristol.
Clarke, Joseph, J.P., Southampton.
Collier, W. F., Plymouth.
Cockburn, Mr. Councillor John T., Carlisle.
Cowen, Councillor Joseph, jun., Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Collins, Councillor Henry, M.D., Wolverhampton.
Conway, M. D., Notting Hill Square, London.
Courtauld, Samuel, Essex.
Courtauld, George, near Halstead, Essex.
«
�Coxe, Sir James, M.D., F.R.S., Murrayfield, Edinburgh.
Cremer, W. R., George Street, Euston Road.
Creighton, Mandell, Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford.
Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Darnton, Rev. P. W., B.A., Newport, Monmouthshire.
Darwin, C. E., Southampton.
Davies, Jesse Conway, M.D., F.A.S., Holywell, Flintshire.
Davis, Rev. John, Tonmawr, Neath, Glamorganshire.
Dawson, G., M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Deykin, W. H., Edgbaston.
Dick, A. H., M.A., L.L.B., Normal College, Glasgow.
Dixon, Joshua, Winslade, Exeter.
Dowson, Rev. H. E., B.A., Gee Cross, Manchester.
Drake, W., M.A., Hon. Canon of Worcester.
Dyster, Frederic D., M.D., F.L.S., J.P., Tenby.
Eadie, Robert, C.E., LL.D., F.R.G.S., London.
Emanuel, Rev. G. J., B.A., Edgbaston.
Emerson, George R., Editor of Weekly Dispatch.
Esson, Wm., F.R.S., Fellow and Tutor of Merton College,Oxford.
Evans, William H., M.A., J.P., Forde Abbey, Dorsetshire.
Everett, J. D., M.A., D.C.L., Queen’s College, Belfast.
Falconer, Thomas, F.G.S., County Court Judge, Usk.
Fallows, W., J.P., Middlesbro’.
Faunthorpe, J. P., M.A., St. John’s College, Battersea.
Fawcett, Mrs., The Close, Salisbury.
Ferguson, Robert M., Carlisle.
Fleming, A., M.D., Birmingham.
Foster, Michael, F.R.C.S., Huntingdon.
Foster, Dr. Michael, London University.
Foster, G. C., B.A,, F.R.S., University College.
Fowle, Rev. T. W., M.A., Cambridge Place, London.
Fry, Herbert, Editor of “ Our Schools,” &c., London.
Fuller, W. M., Wolverhampton.
Fuller, Rev. A. G., Wolverhampton.
Gairdner, W. 8., M.D., Glasgow.
George, Rev. H. B., Fellow of New College, Oxford.
Goodeve, H. H., M.D., Bristol.
Gotch, F. W., L.L.D., Baptist College, Bristol.
Grant, David, Ecclesall College, Sheffield.
Grayson, Charles, Liverpool.
Greenbank, Professor, L.L.D., Manchester.
Grenfell, J. G., B.A., Birmingham.
Grinrod, R. B., M.D., L.L.D., Malvern.
�45
Groome, William, B.A., F.G.S., Bedford.
Guise, Sir William Vernon, Bart., F.G.S., F.L.S., Gloucester.
Hall, Rev. Edward, M.A., Eton College.
Hammond, James L., M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Camb.
Hanham, Captain, J., R.N., near Blandford, Dorsetshire.
Hankin, C. W., M.A., Grammar School, Southampton.
Hansard, Rev. S., M.A., Bethnal Green, London.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Hatton, Thomas S., Wednesbury.
Haycroft, Rev. Nathaniel, M.A., D.D., Leicester.
Heathcote, Rev. H. J., Erdington.
Herbert, the Hon. A., London.
Hicks, Wm., Salisbury.
Hildick, John, Mayor of Walsall.
Hill, Rev. Micaiah, Braithwaite Road, Edgbaston.
Hill, Sir Rowland, London.
Hinks, John, Edgbaston.
Hodges, J. T., M.D., F.C.S., Queen’s College, Belfast.
Hodgson, W. B., L.L.D., Grove End Road, London.
Holden, Angus, Bradford.
Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Holland, Samuel, J.P., Glanwilliam, Tan-y-Bwlch.
Holyoake, G. J., Waterloo Chambers, London.
Hoppus, Rev. John, L.L.D., F.R.S., Camden Street, London.
Horton, Rev. H. H., M.A., Gerrard Street, Birmingham.
Howard, Hon. George, Haworth Castle, Brampton, Cumberland.
Howard, Rev. W. W., H.M. Inspector of Schools, Exeter.
Huth, Edward, Huddersfield.
Hutton, Charles W. C., ex-Slieriff of London.
Howell, George, Buckingham Street, Strand, London.
Huxley, Professor, St. John’s Wood, London.
Jackson, Rev. Edward, M.A., St. James’s, Leeds.
James, Rev. A., Bewdley.
James, Rev. William, Clifton.
Jeaffreson, C. H., Giggleswick Grammar School.
Jevons, Professor W. S., Withington, Manchester.
Jones, Rev. Griffith, Bridgend, Glamorganshire.
Jones, Rev. Hugh, Llangollen.
Jones, Rev. James, Barmouth.
Jones, Rev. T. S., Trewen, Cardiganshire.
Jackson, T. W., Fellow Worcester College, Oxford.
Kane, Sir Robert, L.L.D., F.R.S., Queen’s College, Cork.
Kedwards, Rev. J., Lye Waste, Cradley.
�46
King, William, Queen’s College, Galway.
Kingsley, Rev. Canon, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., Eversley Rectory,
Winchfield.
Kirk, John S., Ph. D., M.A., Carnarvon.
Lambert, Rev. Brooke, Whitechapel.
Lampard, Joseph, St. Mark Street, Birmingham.
Langley, J. B., M.R.C.S., F.L.S., Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
Larkin, Rev. E. R., M.A., Burton, near Lincoln.
Leckenby, John, J.P., F.G.S., Scarborough.
Lee, Rev. F. F., D.D., Lancaster.
Lees, Harold, Woodheys, Sale, Manchester.
Leppoc, H. J., Manchester.
Lestrange, Thomas, Belfast.
Levi, Professor Leone, F.S.A., F.S.S., King’s College, London.
Liveing, G. D., M.A., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Lloyd, Sampson, Wednesbury.
Lloyd, Thomas, J.P., Priory, Warwick.
Locket, Joseph, J.P., Dunoon, Argyleshire.
Lowe, T. C., B.A., Handsworth.
Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., London.
Lupton, Darnton, J.P., Leeds.
Lushington, G. Westminster.
Lushington, Vernon, Q.C., Temple.
Lyell, Sir Charles, Bart., L.L.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., London.
M‘Cance, Finlay, J.P., Suffolk, Antrim, Ireland.
MacCarthy, Rev. F. E. M., M.A., Second Master of King
Edward’s School, Birmingham.
Mander, C. B., J.P., Wolverhampton.
Martineau, Robert, J.P., Edgbaston.
Martineau, Russell, M.A., British Museum, London.
Maginnis, Rev. D., Stourbridge.
Manton, Aiderman, Birmingham.
Mason, Hugh, Ashton-under-Lyne
Mason, Josiah, Birmingham.
Maxfield, M., Leicester.
Maxse, Captain R.N., Southampton.
McLaren, Rev. Alexander, Manchester.
McMichael, Rev. N., D.D., Edinburgh.
Miles, Rev. C. P., M.A., F.L.S., Monkwearmouth, Durham.
Millard, J. H., B.A., Huntingdon.
Mills, John, Manchester.
Milner, Edward, Warrington.
Molyneux, William, F.G.S., Burton-on-Trent.
�47
Mottram, Rev. W., Warminster.
Moses, Rev. R. G., B.A., Falmouth.
Muller, Professor Max, University, Oxford.
Murcli, 0. J., Recorder of Barnstaple and Bideford.
Murch, Jerom, Bath.
New, Herbert, Evesham.
Nicholls, John, Mayor of Launceston, Cornwall.
Norrington, Councillor Henry, Exeter.
Odger, George, Bloomsbury, London.
Oram, Richard, Stonehouse, Devonshire.
Osborne, Aiderman E. C., Birmingham.
Osborne, Captain Sherard, Hyde Park.
Page, David, L.L.D., F.R.S.E., 38, Gilmore Place, Edinburgh.
Paget, Charles, J.P., Nottingham.
Parker, Rev. J. W., Banbury.
Paul, Rev. C. Regan, Sturminster Marshall, Dorsetshire.
Pease, Thomas, F.G.S., Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol.
Prange, F. G., Liverpool.
Pemberton, Oliver, Birmingham.
Pentecost, J., Stourbridge.
Pinnock, Henry, Newport, Isle of Wight.
Pulsford, Rev. William, D.D., Glasgow.
Purdy, Frederick, F.S.S., Poor Law Board, London.
Prichard, Thomas, M.D., Abington Abbey, Northamptonshire.
■Quain, Dr. Richard, F.R.S., University College, London.
Radford, Wm., Birmingham.
Raffles, J., Birmingham.
Ransome, Robert C., Ipswich.
Rathbone, P. H., Liverpool.
Rawlinson, Robert, C'.B., West Brompton.
Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, C.B., Upton-on-Severn.
Reed, E. J., Chief Constructor of the Navy, Whitehall.
Richards, R. C., J.P., Clifton Lodge, near Preston.
Rigby, Samuel, J.P., Warrington.
Ritchie, Rev. W., Liskeard, Cornwall.
Roberts, Rev. J. B., Alnwick, Northumberland.
Rothera, G. B., Nottingham.
Rogers, Professor J. E. Thorold, Oxford.
Roper, Richard, F.G.S., F.C.S., Cwmbraen, near Newport, Mon.
Roscoe, Professor, Owen’s College, Manchester. •
Rowlands, Rev. David, B.A., Welchpool.
Ryland, Aiderman Arthur, Birmingham.
Rumney, Aiderman, Manchester.
�48
Sales, Henry H., Leeds.
Salt, Councillor Titus, jun., Bradford.
Sandford, Archdeacon, Alvechurch.
Sandwith, Humphrey, C.B., Denbigh.
Schmitz, L., L. L.D., Ph. D., International College, London.
Scott, Thomas, Ramsgate.
Seeley, Harry G., F.G.S., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Shaen, W., M.A., Bedford Row, London.
Short, Rev. J. L., Kenwood Road, Sheffield.
Sieveking, Edward IL, M.D., Manchester Square, London.
Simons, W., Merthyr Tydvil.
Smith, Joseph, M.D., J.P., 'Warrington.
Stansfeld, James, Halifax.
Stanley, the Hon. E. L., Aderley Park, Congleton.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Stock, Rev. John, LL.D., Devonport.
Strut, Rev, J. C., Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Style, Rev. George, Giggleswick Grammar School.
Sully, G. B., Mayor of Bridgwater.
Symonds, Rev. W. S., Tewkesbury.
Symonds, Dr., Clifton, Bristol.
Tait, Lawson, F.R.C.S., Wakefield.
Teschemaker, Major T. R., Sydenham, Kent.
Thomas, Rev. John, B.A., Huddersfield.
Thomas, Christopher J., J.P., Bristol.
Thomas, Rev. IT. R., Bristol.
Thomas, Rev. W., Llandyssul, Cardiganshire.
Thursfield, James R., Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.
Tichbourne, C. R. C., F.C.S., Dublin.
Tonks, Edmund, B.C.L., Knowle.
Trevelyan, Arthur, J.P., Teynholm, East Lothian.
Trimble, Robert, Liverpool.
Turner, J. P., Handsworth.
Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham.
Voysey, Rev. Charles, B.A., Healaugh Vicarage.
Webb, C. Locock, Lincoln’s Inn.
Wilson, Rev. H. B., St. Neots.
Williams, Rev. Rowland, LL.D., Broadclialke Vicarage.
Williams, Evan, M.A., Merthyr Tydvil.
Wolstenholme, Miss E. C., Moody Hall, Congleton.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Zincke, Rev. F. Barham, M.A., Ipswich.
�49
And that the Executive Committee consist of the Officers and
forty members of the League, namely, the following thirty gentle
men, and ten others to be chosen by them and the officers :—
Booth, Charles, Liverpool.
Bunce, J. Thaekray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Bristol.
Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham.
Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham.
Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Dawson, George, M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Ferguson, Major, Carlisle.
Field, Alfred, Birmingham.
Fry, Herbert, London.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, London.
Hodgson, W.B., LL.D., London.
Holden, Angus, Bradford.
Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Howell, George, London.
Huth, Edward, Huddersfield.
Kenrick, William, Birmingham.
Kingsley, Rev. Canon, Eversley.
Maxfield, M., Leicester.
Maxse, Captain, R.N., Southampton.
Middlemore, William, Birmingham.
Osborne, E. C., Birmingham.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Ryland, Arthur, Birmingham.
Simons, William, Merthyr Tydvil.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Zincke, Rev. F. B., M.A., Ipswich.
The Chairman : Dr. Hodgson, of London—one of the five or
six gentlemen who started the Manchester National Association for
Secular Eate-paid Education in 1847—will second the resolution.
Dr. Hodgson : My friend Mr. Potter, who preceded me, has
described the motion as one of form • but still I am sure that it will
be received with that feeling of interest and enthusiasm which .it
properly deserves, both on account of the character of the persons
D
�50
to be appointed and the greatness of the object which they will have
in hand to promote. The list of the Executive Committee contains
a large number of members of Parliament who have distinguished
themselves in various ways ; but this may be said of the body col
lectively, that it is composed almost wholly of gentlemen who have
brought this union to its present position, and what they have
already done is a guarantee of what they may be expected to do.
The best way to prove our gratitude to them for services already
rendered is to call upon them to continue those services, and to come
before us next year with a large account of work done. The
President’s reference to the Manchester Association leads me to say
that although death has thinned the ranks of those who composed
that association for obtaining secular rate-paid education, there still
remains a large number who, instead of looking upon the labours of
this League with jealousy, will hail its co-operation with the greatest
earnestness and enthusiasm, not even desiring to meet it in friendly
rivalry. I beg to second the resolution.
In reply to a gentleman who spoke from the body of the hall,
The President said : In the selection of the names mentioned
in the resolution, the principle of having all parts of the country
represented has been carried out.
Mr. Albright : I should like to know if the name of Mr. G. B.
Lloyd is on the Council.
The President : His name is on it.
Dr. Bligh : The suggestion I would make is that in the place of
the words “ ten gentlemen,” &c., the words “ with power to add to
their number” should be inserted. And I do so for this reason, that
whilst I do not in any way doubt the discretion of the Executive
in nominating these gentlemen to the Council, I consider that as the
movement extends all over the country there is room for the taking
in of a large number of representative men not now on the Council.
I beg to move that suggestion.
The President : The objection to that suggestion is that the
executive body ought to be small. It might under your suggestion
become unwieldy ; but still if it is the wish of the meeting that the
alteration should be made, the Committee, of course, will be very
glad to adopt it.
•
�51
A Gentleman : Perhaps the matter might be got over by making
vice-presidents.
The President : We have no vice-presidents. Vice-presidents
are only ornamental people, and we require no ornamental people
here.
The Rev. H. Solly, of London: I do not see the name of any
Congregational minister on the list. I do not belong to that body
myself; but I know that they are very zealous in the cause of
education, and I think it is only fair that they should be repre
sented.
The President : When we have some Congregational minister
willing to join and work upon the Executive Committee, we shall
be very willing to receive his name and to appoint him. We were
very willing to appoint the Rev. R. W. Dale; but some scruple
upon a minor point has prevented him from joining hitherto. If
Mr. Solly will undertake the duty of inducing that gentleman to
join we shall be very glad. These minor points wiU soon settle
themselves.
The resolution, as altered in accordance with the suggestion of
Dr. Bligh, was put to the meeting and agreed to.
NATIONAL EDUCATION BILL.
Professor Eawcett, M.P. for Brighton, rose to move that a
Bill embodying the principles of the League be introduced into
Parliament. He said: The resolution I have the honour and
pleasure to move will give a pledge to the whole nation that this
League, representing a great and an increasing force of public
opinion, is resolved to adopt practical and decisive action. The
subject of national education has now happily advanced a stage
beyond that of doubt and inquiry; it has reached the stage when it
is ripe for action. The reproach is too often with truth made
against Leagues and Congresses that they begin with talk, they go
on with talk, they end in talk, and that is their only result. But
if from this meeting a Btll shall emanate, the whole country will
then see placed in a practical form, in a definite shape—so definite
that they will be able to express their opinions upon it—what are
the views we hold upon this great question, and how we think
�52
these views may be practically carried out. It may be said, of
course, that Government intends to introduce an Education Bill
next session, and that we who repose confidence in the Govern
ment should wait until we see what its measure is. In reply to
that possible objection to this resolution, it is only necessary to
remark that if the Government measure—I am afraid it is too
bright an anticipation—comes up to what we require, if it
embodies the principles of this League, then all that we shall have
to do will be at once to withdraw the Bill which we introduce into
Parliament, and use the whole strength of this organisation in
support of the Government and its measure. But if, on the
other hand, the Government measure should have in it any
shortcomings which we conceive are antagonistic to the great
principles of this League—we cannot, of course, expect that any
measure will meet our programme in all its detail—but if, for
instance, the Government measure should infringe any of our
great fundamental principles—if it should be too denominational
in its character—if it should commit what, to my mind, is the fatal
mistake of having compulsory rating without compulsory
attendance—then our bill will be before the country, and the
nation will be able to decide—and I think I can anticipate their
decision with confidence—to which measure they will give their
support. Now, it would be idle to deny that it is impossible for
the great body of men who compose this League to be entirely
agreed upon details ; but so long as we can get our great aim and
ends secured, we should, I venture to say, sacrifice our individual
preferences upon minor points; and I for one am prepared on all
questions of detail to give up my own opinions and bow cheerfully
to the sentiments of the majority. Thus I may have my own
opinions as to which would be the best title to adopt—undenomi
national, secular, or unsectarian; but I am perfectly prepared to
accept any one of these three words which the majority of the
League think should be the word in our programme. Then again,
I have a preference for parents paying for the education of their
children, instead of sending them to free schools ; but here again
I am perfectly willing to give up my own individual opinions, and
if the majority of the Conference is in favour of free schools, I,
�53
for one, will not shrink for a moment. What I conceive to he the
fundamental principle of this organisation, what I look upon as
the essential point upon which every one of us must be agreed,
which is the bond of our union, the basis of our existence, is this :
that we are absolutely determined that elementary education shall
be guaranteed to every boy and girl in this country, and that if
there is a deficiency of educational appliances, then schools shall
be built and maintained out of the rates. Upon this fundamental
principle I conceive that there can be no difference whatever
amongst us. Now comes the question, if we are to have a Bill,
what are to be the main principles of this Bill, in order to carry
out compulsory attendance and compulsory rating? As far as I
understand the programme of the League, they contemplate that
the schools—at any rate, in the first instance, the rate-supported
schools—shall be unsectarian, and not secular. For a long time, I
must confess, I found it somewhat difficult to discover the differ
ence between these phrases. I think the best explanation that can
be given of the difference is this: that in the rate-supported
schools no catechism shall be used, no dogmas of religion shall be
taught, but it shall be perfectly optional with the managers of a
school whether, in that school, the Bible shall be read, without
any such comment as persons would object to from sectarian
feeling. Therefore, if we adopt this plan of having unsectarian
schools, I think we at once meet the argument of those who say
that the education we propose will be irreligious. No one, I
think, can pretend to say that the British and Foreign schools in
this country are irreligious schools ; and, to put our meaning about
unsectarian schools in a definite and intelligible form, it seems to
me that what we contemplate is this : there will be nothing
whatever in our programme to prevent the managers of ratesupported schools from making their schools exactly analogous in
their religious character to the schools which at present belong to
the British and Foreign School organisation. These schools are
not irreligious ; they are supported by Nonconformists, who have
shown the greatest enthusiasm, for religion. The second point is
this: Do we propose to deal with existing schools ? We
contemplate, I conceive, leaving existing schools untouched. If
�54
a district or a locality prefer voluntaryism to compulsion—if they
choose by their own efforts to provide themselves with schools
according to the present system, they should have the power to do
so. We only contemplate that the educational rate should be
imposed in those districts in which the Government inspector
reports that the educational appliances are not adequate for the
education of all the children in the locality. Now, the next point
is this : is it better that these schools should he supported by
rates, or from the national exchequer ? I believe some gentlemen
who are entirely in favour of the great principle of compulsory
education have not joined our League because they think that
schools should be supported from the Consolidated Fund, and not
from the rates. In reply to these gentlemen I would only say
thus much—that I believe that if you take money from the
Consolidated Fund there is a chance of its being extravagantly
administered, and that if we made a proposal to take
it from the Consolidated Fund we should at once declare
open war against existing schools, for it would be idle to
pretend that any existing schools could continue if the public
could draw for the support of schools from the Consolidated Fund.
In reply to those gentlemen who are in favour of existing schools,
and wish to see them maintained, we can truly say that there is
nothing whatever in our programme that is in the least degree
antagonistic to those schools. If events should show that ratesupported schools are better, then of course the existing schools
would gradually cease. But it is quite possible to conceive that the
power to levy an educational rate may give a great stimulus to the
existing schools, for it is quite possible that many clergymen and
ministers of religion, who now find it difficult or almost impossible
to support their schools, in consequence of the shabbiness and
stinginess of the landed proprietors, may be able to induce them to
come forward if they can use this practical argument, that, unless
they subscribe, rates will be levied upon them and their tenants.
Therefore it is quite possible in some cases that compulsory rating,
instead of touching the present system, may give it a greater
stimulus and render it far more efficient. The last point, upon
which I should like to say a few words—and I speak upon it chiefly
�55
to show you that I am anxious, as far as possible, to be conciliatory
—is upon the question of free schools. I know there is a very
strong feeling in this League in favour of making education free,
but what I object to in this may be briefly stated in one sentence :
I fear the principle of free education may weaken that sentiment of
responsibility which parents should feel towards their children. I
think we should lay down the doctrine that it is as much the duty
■of the parent to provide his child with education as it is to provide
him with food and clothing. I know it may be said, in reply to my
objections, that in certain extreme cases you support the child upon
the rates—that you will not let children starve, but as a last
resource you maintain them upon the rates. Yes ; but if the parent
refuses to support his child when he has the means to do so, you
say that he shall be punished—he commits a criminal act. Simi
larly I should hold that rather than let a child’s mind be starved, as
a last resource he should be provided with a free education ; but I
should like to see the principle never sacrificed, that if a parent who
has the means to give his child education refuses to do so, he too
should be regarded as being guilty of a criminal act. I know it
may be said every parent will contribute indirectly through the
■rates. There is no doubt some force in that argument; but it
would be equally, just to say it was the duty of the State to feed
and clothe children, and not the duty of parents, because the money
devoted to the purpose would be taken from the taxes, and there
fore parents would in the aggregate contribute. But this after all
is only a detail of the great measure we have in view; and I am per
fectly willing to sacrifice my own individual views. If we introduce
a Bill next session, let me give you one word of advice—let it be
introduced almost the very first day of the session. Anyone who
knows the House of Commons will know the importance of that.
And let it be forced on through all its stages. My short experience
in the House of Commons has taught me that persistence is a most
valuable quality. "When we have prepared this Bill, let us never
abandon it until the Government is prepared to carry a measure
similar to it, or until that day will arrive—and I believe it will
never arrive—when the nation shall unmistakeably express its
'desire that the great problem of national education should be settled
�56
upon principles different from those which form the basis of our
organization. I beg to move, “ That the Executive Council be
instructed to prepare a Bill embodying the principles of this League,
and that that Bill be introduced in the early part of next session.”
Professor Thorold Rogers, seconded the resolution, He said :
When I entered again into your town of Birmingham, the first little
phenomenon that came before my attention was the conclusion of
an article in a local paper, that article being, I make no doubt,
exceedingly intelligent and instructive. It was to the effect that,
if we who compose together the body of this Education League
should succeed in proving our point, should show that we had not
hitherto been the decided enemies of education, but that we
intend—I am only paraphrasing the language of the article—a
vast public good, then the editor of this paper, and I suppose
those who read it, will quite abandon for ever the opposition which
they feel towards us, and come over to our side. Now, I am not in
a position to determine the exact numerical value of this possible
conversion. I dare say it will be very considerable. But even if
it be small, ladies and gentlemen, I think we may have reason to
congratulate ourselves ; because our main object—or at least, one
of our main objects—is the reformation of the dangerous classes.
Now, gentlemen, the central point of our Bill, of the movement which
We propose, is the object with which the whole statement of the pur
poses of this National League commences : the establishment of a
system which shall secure the education of every child in the
country. That, I repeat, is the central point, the great object,
the true meaning that we have in all that we say and undertake.
For my part, I think that if we can only achieve the general accep
tance of this principle, all the other points—points of detail—
which have been adverted to in the report readjust now, and which
may hereafter come up for consideration, will follow as a matter of
logical necessity. I entirely agree with my friend Mr. Potter, and
the previous speaker, that if we establish a compulsory system of
education, it is a matter of necessity that that compulsory
education should be supplied, in some form or other, from
public funds. I also agree entirely with Mr. Potter, that if you do
establish a system of compulsory education, the machinery of which
�57
is supplied from the public funds, it must inevitably be what people
call secular, unsectarian, undenominational. I feel, ladies and
gentlemen, that to dispute or doubt about the position laid down by
those gentlemen, is to be ignorant of the facts of the society in
which we live; and that whether we like it or not, for the very welldefined reasons glanced at, I was glad to see, by Mr. Dawson, we
must thoroughly accept their necessary and proper conclusion. I
shall not indeed, for I think it is out of question now, enter into
the reasons why I hold these views, differing as I do upon theological
topics at least—as I understand—from Mr. Dawson. Well, that is
the only allusion I shall make to the subject. But anything like a
Permissive Bill would be wholly and hopelessly out of place.
I will here allude to a distinguished individual in the Church to
which I belong—Archdeacon Denison; with whom, by the way,
I do not agree in almost any point whatever. He avowed one
of the finest sentiments I ever heard in my life the other
day, to the effect that all permissive legislation was a hoax,
a sham, and a delusion. All education, I think, must be
universal and compulsory ■ and it must, I also think, be sup
plied from some public fund. What that fund shall be I do not
intend to discuss now, because I have prepared a paper to read on
that subject this afternoon. How then, having cleared the way
in this fashion, let us, endeavouring to reply to the objections
urged against us, say why we should carry out the platform which
is before us to-day. I was at some trouble to investigate, with
Dr. Barr, of the Registrar General’s office, what might be the
number of children in this country above five and under thirteen
years of age—a period of life during which, I imagine, this
education would be generally bestowed—and we concluded that
there were very nearly four millions and a half of such children in
England and Wales. Now, we know from the little book pub
lished annually by the Board of Trade that the number of children
educated in schools under inspection is about twelve hundred
thousand. I confess that I think it will be a very liberal estimate
to say that a million and a half more are being educated by their
parents, in schools that will not accept Government grants, and
by those various other methods of voluntary teaching which, to
�58
a large degree, supplement public education in this country. Thus
I am left with the horrid conclusion that nearly two millions of
children between the ages of five and thirteen are not getting any
education at all! I sincerely agree with my friend Archdeacon
Sandford, in confessing that I think that that Christianity is a very
queer sort of fabric that will suffer men to be willing that some
thing like two millions of children should grow, up in ignorance
and sin a scandal to the whole civilised world—because they
cannot make up their minds whether or not these children should
be taught something which is no necessary part of school education
at all. I should like the gentleman who edits that local newspaper
to ask himself the question—if he is content, under existing
circumstances, to grapple with the problem, and supposing he will
not accept general and compulsory education—how he proposes to
provide against the growing and terrible fact that you have so
many thousands and tens of thousands of children in this country
who are getting no proper education and culture at all. It is all
very well to talk about our institutions, and to laud the state of
things that exists, but underneath what we see there is a great deal
that is not seen, or that, being seen, is not seen with sufficiently
careful and scrutinising eyes; and amongst those facts nothing is
to me more terrible than that whole hosts of children should
be living and growing up without the smallest prospect of having
their minds or morals trained—and I quite believe that no man
can have his mind trained without his morals being trained
likewise, and that the training of the mind should be antece
dent to the training of the morals. I confess that the difficulty
raised by Professor Fawcett appears to me to be superfluous,
and I will tell you why. If I argue on abstract grounds, he may
object to my commenting on what he said, and may say he has a
right to his belief. But my proofs are derived from existing facts.
What is the country, among the people of our own race, where
there is the most education given by the Government'? It is the
United States. I will not say that there they have compulsory
education, but they have so extended a system that compulsion is
not needed. The education is provided by the State; but does
anyone tell us that American fathers and mothers do not care for it ?
�59
There are no people under the canopy of heaven who are more
willing to make sacrifices, and none amongst whom the results of
education are more satisfactory. We are told—and it is true, at
any rate, of the Northern States—that there is hardly a child to he
found, born of American parents, who does not derive benefits from
the law of education. What reason is there to suppose that if we
get a system like it—or, considering the ignorance of our people, a
more stringent system—our people will not also be desirous of
giving the benefits of education to their children ? I should like to
put this before the editor of your local paper. He says there does
not seem to be any profound anxiety for the progress we intend. I
can only say that I made many speeches about the country to
working men last year, and I constantly alluded to the absolute
necessity of having this system of compulsory education, and I have
no hesitation in saying that whenever I mentioned it there was,
without any exception, a unanimous shout of applause. They
always tell you in their conversation that, surrounded as they are by
people who will not educate their children, and on account of the
freedom they have necessarily to give their children, and of the
circumstances under which they have to be so much away from
them, they are driven to demand that there should be that compul
sion put on the whole mass of their numbers which may or may
not be necessary for the education of those who are in a better
condition of life—to whom the advantages of a good education are
not more obvious, but to whom the machinery of a good education
is at present more accessible. Now we shall be told, I dare say,
that we are a number of unimportant persons ; we shall be informed
by some of the organs of the gentlemanly press that very few
members of Parliament were present, that the parties collected
together were local obscurities, and that the movement, as it has
been started, is one which any respectable people may very well
pooh-pooh. I should like to ask those who are familiar with
political agitation whether it was ever begun by influential persons 1
You may depend on it that if you wait for a national education
till you get, I will not say the whole Liberal party in the House of
Commons, but the influential people in this country, to support it,
■ you will wait till Doomsday before you get it. I challenge denial
�60
of the fact that almost all social, political, and economical reforms
have commenced with the labours of persons whom the gentlemanly
press calls obscurities. Professor Fawcett, as a member of Par] is ment, gives you advice. Let me, as sincerely wishing the success
of this movement, give you this advice : Be content with nothing
but your Bill. You lay down a principle which is theoretically
unassailable, and that principle involves means logically necessary;
let no attempt divert you from these ends. If your principle is
admitted, if the Bill introduced by Government during the next
session involves your principle, you may safely leave the details to
be worked out afterwards; but if the principle is not taken up you
had better go without the Bill than have your principle broken up.
Gentlemen here can remember the progress of the agitation for the
repeal of the Corn Laws, which I need not say was one of the
greatest triumphs the country ever, achieved. That was almost
wrecked at the commencement by the proposal for an 8s. duty.
The advocates of the Anti Com Law League—a League greater in
its historic importance, but not greater in its object than our own—
resolved that no such compromise should be accepted, and held to
the doctrine of total and unconditional repeal. And so I venture
to say it will be your wisdom, and I am certain it will be your
success, if you hold to the total and unconditional concession of the
principle which stands at the head of these statements that are
made in italics. Stick to that, and you will win; abandon it for
anything that falls short of it, and you are pretty certain to lose.
The enemies of national education, and they are many, count on
disunion in your ranks, or timidity on the part of some who sup
port you. They expect you will put up with something less than
you demand, and they know that if you do, you will not get what
you ought to have. I second the resolution.
Mr. Lloyd Jones, in the absence of Mr. George Odger, supported
the resolution : He came to the meeting, he said, certainly of his
ewn desire, but also as the representative of a body of men sitting
in London, composed for the most part of secretaries of the largest
trades’ unions in the kingdom. Those men had organized them
selves for the purpose of securing, if possible, the return of working
men to the British House of Parliament. That was their special
�61
object; but when they heard that the League had been organized,
that its agitation was about to commence, they at once took up the
question as one the most deeply interesting that could be brought
before them, affecting as it did the particular business of their lives.
There was a large number of members present at the meeting which
was called to consider the matter, and not one word of objection was
uttered to the platform of the League. On the contrary, they passed
a resolution declaring that the principles of the League were worthy
of hearty support, and promising to assist the object in view by
every means in their power. That resolution was signed by a large
number of secretaries, one of whom represented between 30,000 and
40,000 engineers. Now, in entering that resolution, he could not
pledge himself that the League would have the moral and practical
support of the men of all trades in London; but he thought he
might pledge himself that it would at least have the support of all
those men represented in the names subscribed to the resolution,
and in saying that he really gave in the adhesion of the working
classes of the country. He was an old working man himself, and
his sympathies, therefore, were with the working men. "Whenever
he could labour with them for the furtherance of any great object, he
invariably did so. His own professional pursuits now compelled him
to go through a deal of reading which was by no means so dry as many
people were disposed to think : he referred to the blue books issued
by the Government. Now, if they referred to the reports of those
gentlemen who were sent by Government to report upon the pro
ducts of industry in the various countries of the world, they would
find that whilst they in England were disputing and debating
about creeds and differences in theology—subjects, no doubt, very
interesting and important in, their way—other nations were
giving a practical education to their people, who were rising
up, not to discuss and fight about theology, but to carry
off the industry of this country in cotton and wool and
iron. If they did not give to the artizans of this country
the same educational advantages as those enjoyed by the
artizans of other nations, they shut them out from competition •
for the markets were open to foreigners as well as to English
men. Why, then, permit other countries to beat their own in
�62
the educational and technical stimulus required for the perfection of
industry ? They might depend upon it, that if this question of
education was not speedily and satisfactorily settled, England would
go back as a nation, not theologically, but in the skill and power
of her industry—she would lose her manufacturing supremacy,
and when she had lost that he was afraid their theological disputes
would be of very little use or interest. Mr. Murray, one of the
Commissioners who reported upon the cotton fabrics at the
Exposition at Paris in 1867, describing the Swiss goods, said that
if in all countries there existed such a good system of education
as in Switzerland, the commercial position of England would be
menaced in various ways. Again, Mr. Massey, who reported upon
the woollen goods, said that there was no doubt the French were
greatly indebted for their progress in manufactures to the very
superior technical education which was obtained by the artizans
through schools instituted for special instruction. Mr. Massey
argued that if in England they wanted to have skilled working
men, special regard must be given to general education. Now, they
stood there to-day in the presence of as great an educational
failure as had ever taken place on the face of the earth. The
denominational system had promised to do everything, yet they
were told from the platform that day, that there were above two
•million children in the country receiving no education at all ! That
was a state of things utterly discreditable to them as a nation, and
did they not adjust their differences and throw overboard their
prejudices, England would sink as a nation in position and influence,
theology not being able to save them from the fall.
The Rev. H. E. Dowson, addressing the Chairman, said : I
understood that we came here to support secular education, but I
find that we are now asked to support the British School system,
and against that I utterly protest. I say it is a compromise, and
every compromise deserves to fail.
The Chairman : Mr. Dowson has entirely misunderstood what
has taken place. We do not use the word “ secular”; but we
exclude all theological parts of religion, and I am sure that what
is left is what even Mr. Dowson himself would call “ secular.”
But at any rate, however that may be, Mr. Dowson must remember
�63
that we have placed, or we wish to place, the decision of the
question in the hands of the people themselves in each district, in
the hands of the fathers of children who are to be educated, or,
what is the same thing, their representatives on the school
committees. Before I put the resolution, I wish to make one
remark in reference to an observation which fell from Professor
Bogers. He said that, in the estimation of some people, some
members of the League were “ obscurities.” Now, I do not wish
to point to the gentlemen who have addressed you to-day from this
platform, nor to the 40 members of Parliament heading our list,
nor yet to the 300 or 400 ministers of all denominations who
have joined, nor to the most eminent men of science whose names
appear upon the list ; but I would just say that we have been told
upon the highest authority that we have upon our list of members
certain persons of very great influence—indeed, of much greater
weight and influence than we in Birmingham are at all conscious
of. Therefore, although Professor Rogers is perfectly right in
saying that we depend mainly upon the righteousness and goodness
of our cause; that we intend to go not to celebrities, not to leaders,
but to the people themselves (to whom we look for that strength
and for that power which will ultimately most certainly carry
the measure) ; yet still it will be seen that we are not altogether
“ political obscurities. ”
The resolution was then put and carried, and the meeting
• adjourned.
THE CHAIRMAN’S PAPER ON NATIONAL
SCHOOLS.
On the reassembling of the meeting in the afternoon, the
Chairman read the following paper :—
The paper I am about to read on “ The Best System for National
Schools, based upon Local Rates and Government Grants,” must
not be supposed to emanate from the Provisional Committee, nor to
have any more authority as an exposition of the views of the
National Education League than a paper by any other member
present would have. The central idea in the scheme of the National
�Education League is that the education of the people should no
longer continue to be based exclusively upon the isolated, and often
fitful, efforts of individuals, however noble and valuable those
efforts might be ; but that the State should become responsible for
the education of the whole of its children. This responsibility
need not involve taking immediate charge of all existing schools.
Where education is being satisfactorily carried on there, it may be
that no further action by the State will be required. It will suffice
if provision be made for the transfer to the School Boards of those
schools whose managers may desire it. It appears to me that no
measure for a national system would be complete unless it contained
the following enactments :—The entire cost of erecting or main
taining national-rate schools, to be defrayed out of the rates and
taxes of the country, in the proportion of one-third from the former
and two-thirds from the latter. The principle of payment on results
to be continued. Power to be given for the compulsory purchase
of school sites. In every county and in every large municipality a
School Board to be elected of the ratepayers or their representatives.
These Boards shall ascertain where schools are wanted, and see that
they are provided; shall negociate the transfer of existing schools
to the local authorities, whenever such transfer is desired by the
managers, and will be advantageous to the district; shall appoint
committees to manage schools or groups of schools ; shall levy the
necessary rates, claim the Government grants, and pay all the
expenses of the schools; shall keep registers of all the children of
school age within their districts, placing opposite to each child’s
name that of the school which may be fixed upon by the parents,
guardians, or school officers, and shall send a list of the names and
addresses of the children assigned to each school to the respective
school committees; shall appoint school officers to make out and
periodically revise the above registers, and undertake the duty of
enforcing attendance, under the direction of the school committees.
(The duties of these school officers might be performed by the school
master in thinly-populated districts, and where the schools are
small.) Shall fix the number of, and the period for, the attendances
to be required of children in the course of the year, within the
limits prescribed by the Committee of Privy Council on Education ;
�65
and shall take care that all other provisions of the Act of Parliament
under which they are appointed be carried out. The School Com
mittees shall appoint the masters and mistresses, subject to the
approval of the School Boards ; shall see that the school buildings
are kept in repair, and supervise and sanction the expenditure of the
school; shall report to the School Boards all irregularities and
infractions of rules ; shall cause registers to be kept of the attend
ances of all the children belonging to their schools, see that the
school officers call on the parents or guardians of those children who
attend irregularly, or do not attend at all, and acquaint them with
their duties, with the meaning and object of the school laws, and
the penalties following a disregard of them, and shall summon
before them absentee children, or their parents or guardians, and
admonish them; and in the event of their injunctions being dis
obeyed, shall cause them to be summoned before a magistrate, with
whom shall rest the infliction of a fine. All national-rate schools
shall be free, and no catechisms, creeds, or tenets peculiar to any
particular sect shall be taught in them during the recognised
school hours. But the school committee shall have power to
permit the use of the Bible without note or comment, and to grant
the use of the class rooms for religious instruction out of school
hours, on condition that one sect is not favoured more than
another. Whenever a parent or guardian can substantiate a plea
of poverty as a reason for not sending a child to school, and
there is no free school within reach, the committee shall have
power to pay the school fees of such child ; and it shall be
obligatory on the managers of the school selected by the parent, if
such school be receiving Government aid, to admit the child, and
to refrain from teaching it any catechism, creed, or tenet peculiar
to any particular sect. The managers of any non-national rate
school may negotiate with the School Board for its transfer to the
local authorities, and the Board shall, if the transfer be otherwise
desirable, and the managers wish it, agree to appoint the said
managers to be the School Committee, until their resignation or
death, on the condition that all the provisions of the School Act
are observed by them. Her Majesty’s Inspectors shall cease to
examine on religious subjects, and in each district there shall
E
�66
consequently be only one inspector. The number of inspectors
shall be augmented, and the following additional duties shall be
imposed upon them :—They shall report to the Committee of
Privy Council on Education, and to the School Boards—whether,
in their opinion, a sufficient number of efficient schools exists for
the wants of the district; in what schools the education is
defective, and the manner in which the defects can best be
remedied; whether the attendance of the children has been
satisfactory, and if not, whether the proper steps have been taken
to enforce it. In the event of the School Boards failing to obtain
such results as may be deemed satisfactory by the Committee of
Privy Council on Education, it shall be the duty of the Committee
of Privy Council to direct what additional measures are to be
taken, and Her Majesty’s Inspectors shall see that those measures
are adopted. If the scheme above described were carried out, I
am of opinion that we should achieve the following results. We
should avoid the evils of centralisation on the one hand, and of
local inefficiency on the other. Whilst retaining all the advan
tages of local self-government, and of the immediate and direct
action of public opinion based on local knowledge, we should
be guarded by an enlightened inspection and strong Government
control against the danger of our standard of efficiency
being lowered in some districts by the ignorance and niggardliness
of the ratepayers. The new schools provided by the local
authorities would be of a class equal, if not superior, to the best
denominational schools. The heavy responsibilities and large
expenditure involved would prevent the ratepayers from providing
more schools than were absolutely necessary. The new schools
would be mainly, if not entirely, erected in those districts which
are now destitute of them—that is, in those districts where, by
reason of the poverty of the inhabitants, free schools are most
needed. Existing well-managed schools would be able to maintain
their ground, if it be true, as is alleged, that the religious
teaching given in them is valued by the subscribers and by
the parents of the pupils. I would recommend that the
Government grants to all existing denominational schools which
accept a conscience clause should be the same as those to the
�67
national-rate schools—that is, that they should be increased from
the present amount of one-third of the total cost to two-thirds,
thus relieving the managers of one-half of their present responsi
bilities. The remaining half would not be too much to pay for
the assured advantages of religious instruction and the supposed
superiority of voluntary management. It is also probable that
some of these denominational schools would be preferred by
parents as being more select; and as this would in part be owing
to the fees required, those fees would on that account be more
willingly paid. The result of the rivalry that would take place
between the denominational and the national-rate schools might be
that the upper portion of the working classes would prefer the
former for the reasons mentioned above ; but, in my opinion, the
instruction given in the national-rate schools would be found to be
generally so superior as to cause them, in the course of time, to
supersede the others. But the process would be gradual, and no
inconvenience would be felt by the transfer of schools that would
he continually taking place. , Should my anticipations be realised,
I am further of opinion that the knowledge and influence of
religion would become far more widely spread than is now the
case; because the groundwork for it would be universally laid, and
the clergy would be able to devote themselves more exclusively
to the giving of religious instruction. I do not believe that the
spirit of voluntaryism would languish under the new system.
Those persons who now take an interest in primary schools would
he placed on the school committees, and as there would be more
schools, their services would be in greater request. The necessity
for voluntary contributions of money would also be quite as
paramount as ever; but instead of these contributions being
devoted to the building and maintenance of schools for the
higher classes of working men, some, if not all, of whom are well
able to pay the entire cost of the education of their children, they
would be devoted to the providing of clothing and perhaps even of
food, for those destitute children who are now unable to attend
schools of any sort, because they are starving and in rags. The
greatest difficulty in the way of compulsory school attendance is
the sacrifice of the child’s earnings; but this difficulty may be.
�68
considered to have been already grappled with by the Factory
Acts, the extension of which to all parts of the country is called
for by public opinion. In some cases, however, a modification of
the half-time system will be necessary, especially in the agri
cultural districts, where a cessation of school attendance might be
advantageously allowed during the period of harvest. As some
time will elapse before compulsory attendance powers will be
granted to the local authorities, and as they will even then be
inoperative until sufficient schools have been provided, the public
mind will have become prepared for the law before its operation
commences. And inasmuch as its enforcement will be in the
hands of local committees—that is, of gentlemen well known and
esteemed in their respective districts, whose sympathies with the
poor have been already called into active exercise—it is not likely
that the law will be harshly enforced. For a long time the
operations of the committee will be necessarily restricted to the
instruction of the parents in their duties to the children, and it is
probable that one or two cases only of refractory parents being
summoned before a magistrate will suffice to bring into school
nine-tenths of those children who are now idling about the streets.
One important result of the adoption of this system of national
education would be that parents would feel an interest in the
schools unknown, and indeed impossible, before. Hitherto they
have had no voice whatever in the management of that which was
of more importance to them than anything else in the State, and
it is not surprising that the apathy has followed which usually
results from absence of responsibility. It is a common remark of
earnest clergymen that when they are labouring to induce the
attendance of children at school, the attitude of parents is that of
persons who think they are asked to confer a favour, and who
believe that the managers of a school, like the owners of a shop,
have some personal end to serve. But when these parents find
that the schools belong to themselves, that they are paid for
and managed by the people, and that they would save nothing, but
lose much, by not using them, then their attitude towards them
will be entirely changed, and one great obstacle to school
attendance will be removed. Some may shrink from the cost of
�69
so complete a system, but this is one of those cases where a wellregulated expenditure is economy, where the niggardliness of
inefficiency is extravagance. If every child in the United
Kingdom were brought into school the total increased charge
upon the taxpayers of the country would probably not reach onethird of the money expended upon our paupers and our criminals.
The cost per scholar would not be greater if the charge of educa
ting the people were thrown upon the State. The total amount
spent upon education would be augmented only in proportion to
the increase of scholars. The choice before us is expenditure on
education, or expenditure on paupers and criminals.
PROFESSOR THOROLD ROGERS OK SECULAR
EDUCATION.
The Rev. J. E. Thorold Rogers read the following paper :—
I assume that this Congress accepts the position that primary
education should be universal, should be compulsory, should be
as a necessary consequence gratuitous, and that, since the State does
not enforce or constrain any particular form of religious belief, should
be secular. In order to obviate any unfriendly interpretation of
this word, I may state that I do not use it in any sense which
implies resistance to religion, indifference to religion, or substitution
for religion. I take for granted that the functions of a religious
teacher and a schoolmaster in purely intellectual culture can be
separated, and that the State is bound to find the latter, but that
it cannot and ought not to provide the former, still less
to import such an element into a compulsory system. The
question as to the source from which the funds necessary to
provide for the machinery of secular learning should come ought to
be settled, and can be settled, on purely economical considerations.
Should the class immediately benefited by a system of primary
education contribute the requisite funds ? Is society at large so
considerably benefited by the change which the Congress seeks to
effect that the necessary charge should be raised from the general
resources of society ? Is it in accordance with the principles of
political justice, as now interpreted, that the fund supplied for
the purpose should be levied by the whole community on the
�70
resources of a part of the community 2 If it be determined that it
should be levied on the whole community, what is the most
equitable way in which the fund should be raised, and what is the
way in which it should be distributed so as to secure that
maximum of efficiency which is supposed to be obtained by the
instituted supervision of those who are intrusted with its manage
ment ? I will attempt as simply as possible to answer these
questions. No one, I imagine, will contest the position that the
immediate benefit of a system of primary education falls to the
labourer. Every one agrees that such an education renders his
work more intelligible, and therefore easier.
If, therefore,
an educated body of labourers do not derive an increased rate
of remuneration from the education which they obtain, they earn
the rate which they do get on lighter terms and with less toil.
Besides, the effect of education in sharpening the intelligence of the
labourer is or may be extended to supplying him with the
knowledge of the best market for his labour. If he becomes handy
because he is intelligent, the same mental power will direct him
to the best means for bettering his condition, and so afford him a
positive as well as a relative increase in his resources. Nor must
it be forgotten that the remuneration of labour is, on the whole,
determined by the cost of supplying it, and that if the
age at which productive labour is employed is delayed or
postponed, the wages earned are, cceteris paribus, invariably
higher. This rule might be illustrated abundantly from every-day
experience, and holds good even if the labourer does not contribute a
single penny towards the cost of his own education. He must
be kept while he learns, and this charge will produce the effect
referred to. If it could be shown, then, that all the benefits of a
system of primary education accrue to the material advantage of theclass for which we seek to provide such an education, and produce
no effect, near or remote, on the general well-being of society, the
cost of supplying this education ought to be entirely defrayed by the
parties who desire the benefit, in just the same way as the outlay
on a field, or the stocking of a shop, should be supplied at the
charges of the persons who gain a profit on either. Nor would it
be impossible to obtain such funds from the direct contribution of
�71
the class for whose purposes such a tax would he expended.
The State might levy a poll or income tax on all parties who
might need this instruction, rateably to the claims which they make
on the machinery. Such a poll tax is levied in many of the states
composing the American Union. If a half-time system were
adopted, the requisite quota might he even collected from the
child’s earnings, and a very small sum per week would be sufficient
to meet the cost of supplying this necessary of life in the case
of children too young to work at all. Ill paid as the agricultural
labourer is, he is seldom so straitened as to be incapable of finding a
few pence per week for the cost of instructing his children, just as
he is generally able to find much more for their clothing. It is
said that the Wesleyans are able to maintain their organization
by a penny a week from each member of their body. Everybody
knows, too, that the voluntary expenditure of the poor on taxable
commodities is enormously in excess of any possible amount which
might be demanded for public education. In the case, of course, of
those who are utterly destitute, a machinery like that of the Poor
Law would supply instruction, as it now does, with food, clothing,
and lodging. My hearers are aware, that with many persons the
contribution of children’s pence is, apart from its amount, con
ceived to be necessary as an acknowledgment of the benefit
which education is, and of the moral obligation which rests on
parents to supply that which is only immediately less important
than wbat are called the necessaries of life. But the fact is, the
benefit of education to the mass of labourers is only more obvious
than the benefit of the process to society at large. The employer
of labour gets his advantage from education. Many of us know
the fact, for instance, that an educated recruit learns his drill in
half the time, and at less than half the expense, incurred in
training another who is wholly unlettered. Over and over again
employers find that labour may be more highly paid, and be cheaper
after all, because more effective. And here I may observe, that the
faults of a low system of education are not to be charged on education
itself. One of the worst kinds of education which is given in
England—and it is very costly into the bargain—is, as I know
from my experience as a Poor Law Guardian, that which is given
�72
in industrial schools for pauper children. But I must not enter
on this topic. I only refer to it in order to obviate an objection.
But if a sound system of education is of advantage to the person
who receives it, and also to the person who lines the services of
those who have enjoyed it, it is of no less advantage to the public at
large. A good education is the best preventive of crime. Men are
quite as much degraded by ignorance as by vice. Harrow men’s
faculties, and you strengthen the temptation to the grosser forms
of indulgence. Enlarge them wisely, give men an insight into the
moral and material interests—never really separable—of the
society in which they live, and which claims their allegiance,
because it bestows on them the highest services, and gives them
the fairest field for their labour, and you will ultimately need no
police except for those who are utterly and hopelessly depraved.
It is, I am persuaded, possible to cultivate a public opinion
which shall do more to correct vicious tendencies than all the
repressive forces of the most rigorous police. And what is
a sound public opinion but the outcome of public education?
But if the advantages of a really national education, the course and
details of which are wisely determined, are so generally diffused
over society, it is the duty of society at large to bear the charge of
this, which is, after all, the cheapest as well as the most effective
police. I have tried to answer two of the questions which I put
at the outset of this paper. But supposing the tax is to be levied,
not on one class but on all, how should the rate be laid ? We have
got in this country a rough-and-ready way of levying taxes for local
purposes, by putting a rate on the occupier of property. Such a
form of taxation is very often grossly unfair. For example, a poor
rate is practically an indirect means of paying wages, or at least ofsupplying the means by which certain liabilities affecting the con
dition of the labourer are met from other than his own resources.
Now, if the occupier who does not employ labour with a view to
profit, is called upon to contribute to the fund by which the man
who does employ labour with a view to profit, ekes out wages, I see
that the former is wronged. I might, if time permitted, illustrate
my position by a variety of examples, indicating the incidence of
local taxation, and confirming my statement that the present process
�of assessment is radically unequal. But a wrong which I protest
against I should strive not to commit; and hence, assuming that
the benefits of a national education are national, I think it
would be a crying injustice to provide the funds by taxing the
occupiers of one kind of property only, and a still greater injustice
if the tax were levied directly on the owners of real estate; though
perhaps I need hardly say, that the theory which assumes that the
landowner pays the tenant’s rates in a diminished rent, is sheer
pedantry, which everybody’s experience refutes. If you could get
a just income-tax-—and as yet I see no prospect of so desirable a
consummation, though it is perfectly easy to show the basis of a
just income-tax—such a tax would be theoretically the fund from
which an education rate should be levied. I am of opinion that it
is wise policy to appropriate not only the proceeds of taxation
strictly, which no one disputes, but to import into a system of
finance a rule that special taxes should have special objects ; and I
am sure that economies of taxation could be far more easily achieved
if people understood the object to which an impost was directed.
Not a little of the extravagance of administration arises from the
practice (originally adopted by desperate financiers) of consolidating
taxes into a fund, and then charging all kinds of expenditure on
that common fund. If I were in the position of a financial reformer,
the first basis of my reform would be, special taxes to special objects.
As it is, I am driven to recommend that the tax for education should
be derived from that financial abomination, the Consolidated Fund.
I know that there is a strong indifference to economy in dealing
with funds granted from the State; and my hearers, if they agree
with me in my dislike of taxation being agglomerated into one or
a few units, will see why people are ready to play fast and loose
with great quantities, the vastness of which renders them unintelli
gible. There is a famous question on record, answered, I believe, very
facetiously in this town : What is a pound ? In the administration
of public funds, and in due economy in their administration, the
question “ What is a million pounds ?” is, I fancy, a matter which
tasks the understanding more stringently. I have alluded to my
experience as a Poor Law guardian. I have constantly found that
while my colleagues will waste a whole afternoon in debating
�74
whether they should spend £5, they look with a sort of puzzled
curiosity, as though they do not know whether I am a fool or an
astute impostor with ulterior views, when I have pointed out that
such and such a change in their arrangements will save the Govern
ment £500. If, then, we get the necessary funds from Government,
and appropriate them, under the equitable administration of a
Minister of Education, by local boards—an argument on the consti
tution of which does not fall within the scope of this paper—we
shall perhaps be able to do the best that can be done during the
interval between our use of the existing financial system and its
probable improvement in the future. I may perhaps be personally
excused for referring, in conclusion, to the incidental topic with
which I commenced. Objections are raised against our purpose in
this agitation, on the ground that we are unfriendly to religion, by
which I hope is meant Christianity. No sensible man, I presume,
would condescend to answer the calumnies of polemical or political
partisans. But how strong would Christianity be if it repudiated
its professional advocates, and trusted for its victories to those
who believe and live for the patient practice which it invariably
enjoins1
REV. A. STEINTHAL ON LOCAL EDUCATIONAL
RATING.
The Rev. S. A. Steinthal, of Manchester, read the follow
ing paper :—In the few remarks which I propose to address to the
Congress, I shall take for granted, that we are all of us agreed upon
the importance of the leading features of the scheme, put forward
by the National Education League, and have no doubt as to the
need which exists of largely extending the means of giving education
to the people. I shall not stay to discuss whether there is any
serious error in the statistics published by the Manchester and
Birmingham Education Aid Societies. Even if the numbers with
which they have appalled the country should, on further examina
tion, be shown to have overdrawn the sad picture of the condition
of the towns in which their useful labours have been exerted, there
is so undeniable an amount of unreached ignorance around us, that
it would be sinful to waste time in discussing the accuracy or in
�75
accuracy of mere figures while human souls are perishing for lack
of knowledge. I shall nor enter upon the topic reserved for other
papers as to the undenominational character which all schools sup
ported by public money ought in justice to bear ; or try to prove—
what I believe would not he difficult to prove—-that it is wiser, under
all circumstances, to confine the ordinary instruction of the dayschool to so-called secular subjects, instead of pretending to intro
duce theological matters, to which justice cannot be done in common
schools, while teaching the elements of ordinary knowledge. It is
not my intention to discuss the important subject, of whether
attendance at school is to be made compulsory, or the production of
satisfactory evidence of education being received elsewhere, insisted
upon. I would simply state in passing, that unless school attend
ance, or its equivalent, is made compulsory, I should not advocate,
as I intend doing in this paper, the need of levying a local rate to
be applied, in addition to the Government grant for school purposes.
It is the fact that the common weal demands the universal education
of all citizens, which justifies the community in insisting upon the
attendance of all children at school; and it is the right of. every
individual member of the community to find the means within his
reach of fully developing not only his physical, but mental and
moral capacities. The community has the right to insist upon every
child being educated, and the child has the right to demand that
school accommodation and proper means of teaching should be pro
vided for it. It seems to me that what is thus needful for all, and
for all alike, should not be left to the unreliable and spasmodic
exertions of voluntary benevolence. Experience has proved to us
that voluntary benevolence will not effect the object required. It
is useless to go over the old, well-trodden ground to show how, in
the first place, parents have neglected their duties, how Christian
charity has been unable to supply the void of parental negligence,
or how even State aid to voluntaryism has failed to overcome the
amount of ignorance we have permitted to exist among us. There
are many districts in which there are no persons sufficiently inter
ested in promoting education, to devote any portion of their means
to the establishment and maintenance of schools • and, under our
present system, to those places no share of Government aid is allowed
�76
to go; and while the children in such localities are left either in
entire ignorance, or are exposed to the inefficient training of the
dame school, there are other places where benevolence, stimulated
by sectarian zeal, multiplies unnecessary accommodation, and wastes
large sums in erecting buildings and in supporting a staff of teachers
far in excess of the real wants of the neighbourhood. This is no
new complaint, but it is not less true now because it is old. More
than eighteen years ago Dr. Hodgson gave a typical illustration of
the wasteful character of leaving the support of schools to volun
tary effort. “ At New Mills, near Manchester, an active clergyman
of the Church of England came into competition with the Wesleyan
school, but did not succeed till he established a day school. The
Wesleyan school was capable of accommodating -150 scholars, but
the clergyman succeeded so well that only 17 scholars were left in
it. The Wesleyans determined not to be annihilated. They got
up a day school, and obtained a teacher whom nothing could dis
hearten. The result, according to the Methodist minister, had not
been well for both schools. He expressed his sorrow that they had
nearly put an extinguisher upon the Church schools : two pews could
contain all its scholars, while their Sunday schools numbered from
5 to 600 scholars.” Is it not sad that while the evil waste of such
rivalry was recognised twenty years ago, we should be suffering
under similar evils this day, and still obliged to discuss the need of
obviating such sectarian jealousies ? Nor does it seem to me to be
just to throw the burden of education upon voluntary givers, even
were it prudent to do so. Are not all of us who are in any way
connected with the multiform methods of charitable exertion well
aware how small is the number of those who are the supporters of
all benevolent efforts ? The same names, not always the wealthiest
in a district, are time after time compelled to contribute, and though
the most generous givers are generally the last to complain of having
to do so much, are they not prevented from devoting their means to
objects in which they take special interest, because they cannot
conscientiously allow the absolutely essential work of education to
be left undone, on account of the niggardliness of those who will not
give until forced by law ? But even the benevolent cannot ensure
their children being alike generous with themselves, nor has any
�11
district the certainty of the wealthy remaining amongst them. A
manufacturing town is not always the most agreeable residence, and
many who have made their money in overcrowded places, retire to
enjoy their well-earned prosperity far from the scene of their earlier
life; and new claims prevent their still contributing to schools,which
languish in consequence. Every now and then, it is true, the sad
neglect of the education of the poor strikes the attention of some
philanthropist like the late Mr. Edward Brotherton, of Manchester,
and a new attempt is made to stimulate the activity of benevolence
—only to prove, as experience had done before, and is doing again,
how vain it is to rely upon benevolent voluntary effort alone. This
unreliability and spasmodic character, is all the more fatal to educa
tional progress, as the conditions under which Government aid is
granted claim a certain amount from local effort or endowment
before any money can he given under the Minutes of Council. So
important a matter as the education of the people can no longer be
left to efforts nearly twenty years ago justly characterised as “ im
pulsive, irregular, uncertain, unequal, and capricious in their opera
tion.” (West. Rev., July, 1851.) Our choice, then, in seeking for
the means of establishing and supporting schools must lie between
grants from the central government, local rating, or a combination
of these two methods. The advocates of a school system supported
altogether from funds derived from the national government, have no
weak argument in their behalf when they point out, how very heavy
the burden of local taxation is at present, and how limit 3(1 the area
is upon which rates are levied : how the wealthy fundholder will
escape almost untaxed for schools under a rating system, while the
burden would be less felt by the poor and struggling if the cost cf
education be defrayed from national taxation. The income from
which national taxation is paid is estimated atleast at.£500,000,000,
while the assessment of the whole country is only £150,000,000.
Twopence in the pound on the former sum would raise more than
the £4,000,000 which it is estimated would suffice to provide
primary education for all our children, while a rate of nearly seven
pence in the pound would be required for the same purpose. It is
further true that under any rating scheme some part of the popu
lation would escape from payment, even as in the case of our present
�78
rates, under which we know that the most destitute classes are
uniformly excused from paying the rate imposed ; while everyone
does contribute something to the general taxation, and will do so as
long as tea and coffee and sugar, to say nothing of intoxicating
drinks and tobacco, are made to add so much to the national
revenue. But, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that,
if the whole amount of the educational expenses of the
country is paid from national funds, its expenditure must be
entirely entrusted to the central authority; and I am quite
prepared to declare my own strong objection to giving more
influence to the Government than I am obliged to do, even though
I do not altogether hold the opinion that, nothing beyond
securing life and property should fall within the purview of the
State. I believe that local management is absolutely necessary for
the efficient management of the schools, and therefore I believe
that the greater portion of the funds should be raised as well as
expended in the localities to be themselves benefited. It is very
customary at the present day to sneer at everything connected
with local self-government. No joke is more readily welcomed
than one pointed at the narrowness and stupidity of a Board of
Guardians, or a Town Council. But does not this arise from the fact
that the objects which such boards have before them are often
regarded as too low to claim the attention of educated men ? When a
Board of Guardians undertakes to make its hospital a model hos
pital, and its treatment of pauperism, a means of lessening the
evils of pauperism, do we not find educated men devoting
themselves assiduously, as I have known them do in Chorlton,
Manchester, and Liverpool, and as no doubt they frequently do
elsewhere ? Do we not see in corporations where there are free
libraries, that men are willing to enter the Council that they may
sit upon the Library Committee ? I have even lately had proof
that the Public-house Closing Act, which enables Town Councils
to close those prolific sources of misery, immorality, and crime for a
few hours, has induced men to enter them, that they might support
such measures of improving the social condition of the people.
May we not, therefore, anticipate that if a municipal Board of
Education be constituted the best men amongst us would be
�willing to serve upon it? And as it is proposed that all
rate-supported schools should be free, the increased burden
imposed by the rate would be lightened, on the other hand, by the
exemption of all who desired it from the payment of school-pence,
and voluntary subscriptions towards the maintenance of
schools. The fact that a special educational rate was levied
would tend to interest every ratepayer in the school. He would
be anxious to see it prosper, would take a pride in its efficiency.
That this is no theoretical advantage is seen by the experience of
■our Australian colonies, where each district strives to rival its
neighbours in the excellence of its educational institutions. If, as
I trust, there should be a system adopted whereby the best
children in the schools could obtain scholarships to enable
them to pursue their studies in higher schools; and to assist them,
if need be, to the highest scholarships; this healthful emulation
would be increased still more, as a successful student would throw
back some reflected fame upon his school, and upon the district
which had enabled him to attain success. I am well aware that
ratepaying is not the most pleasing of duties ; but as soon as men
perceived, as they soon would do, that an educational rate would
lessen the poor rate, the police rate, the expenses of the criminal
courts, and the like, the economy of giving a good education would
be recognised, and the payments would he made cheerfully and
without complaint. It should, however, be always insisted upon,
in my opinion, that the school rate should be kept separate from all
other rates, and should not be merged with that long list which is
.attached to the present poor-rate paper. I urge this, as I wish that
every parent should be distinctly impressed with the fact that he
does not receive an altogether gratuitous education for his children.
I am not afraid that the children attending a free school would feel
themselves pauperised, for education always raises the nobler
feelings of the taught, and never degrades them. Nor am I
anxious lest parents should feel themselves robbed of their inde
pendence by their children being able to attend school without pay
ment of the weekly pence. They would know that they are paying
their quota, and as has often been said, we none of us feel ourselves
■degraded by the fact that our streets are lighted by gas, that ouj
�80
security is preserved by policemen, and that the many comforts we
enjoy owing to municipal government arc not paid for directly, but
are supported by rates to which we all contribute according to our
means. There are very few, comparatively speaking, in this
country who do pay directly the cost of their children’s education.
The working classes make use of schools sustained by voluntary
subscriptions, endowments, and Government grants. The middle
and higher classes find in grammar schools and colleges that their
ancestors’ benevolence has freed them from this burden. We none
of us are pauperised under these influences. Why the change from
school pence and voluntary subscriptions should suddenly make
such a change I cannot understand. Schools under such a system
would indeed be even less charity schools than they are now.
I have, however, not proposed in the above argument to pay the
whole expenses of the school from local sources ; nor do I intend
to do so. The cost of a child’s training in a school is, I believe,
estimated in the Revised Code at 30s. a year, of which sum I think
the Committee of Council generally pay about a third. I would not
alter this, but would simply raise the sum needed to make up the
total by rates instead of by the present means. I am quite ready
to acknowledge that local authorities are not unfrequently actuated
by an economical spirit which approaches to niggardliness; and as a
corrective to this tendency being applied to schools, I would insist
upon Government inspectors visiting the school, upon whose
favourable report alone should any Government help be given. It
does not fall within the scope of my paper to discuss the nature
of the examination which should be insisted upon; but I would
incidentally remark that I hope the meagre standard of the
Revised Code will not be long maintained. Nor have I to consider
the character of the authority which should appoint the inspectors,
although I hope a responsible Minister of Education may soon take
the place of the Committee of Council, in whose constitution I
have very little confidence. But I believe that by no means can
the wants of the community be better met than by such a method
as I have sketched. I hardly know whether I am expected while
speaking of rate-supported schools which offer free instruction to
all comers, to speak of the conditions under which existing schools
�81
should be admitted to the benefits such a plan offers. I should
avoid as much as possible building new school buildings ; but I
would do so by freely offering to all existing schools the privilege of
becoming rate-supported schools on complying with the two require
ments, that the education given in them should be unsectarian, and
should be free. Unsectarian, because to allow denominational
schools to be aided by the rate would be to revive with increased
difficulty the old Church-rate contest; free, because, supported by
public money, the public should justly be entitled to receive the
benefits they offered. A truly national system could thus be
established with no infringement of any existing rights, with a
perfect preservation of local self-government, and yet, through the
system of Government inspection, always maintaining a high
standard of efficient training for all who are to be the future
citizens of our native land.
MR. PENTECOST ON COMPULSION.
Mr. Pentecost, of Stourbridge, read the following paper on
Compulsory Attendance. He said : If any one part of the scheme
of national education is of greater importance than another, it
is, I think, that relating to “ compulsory attendance.” Educa
tion may be free and schools may be multiplied, but without
compulsory attendance there would be still a large proportion of
children preferring the street to the school. The work would be
only partially done, since the very class it is most desirable to
reach would be left untouched.’ The opponents of a compulsory
measure perceive that it involves the establishment of free non
sectarian schools; hence their opposition. The public is assured by
them that the English nation, especially the working classes, will not
submit to compulsion. The working classes are farther advanced
upon this question than seems to be supposed. Moral, social, and
political progress will not be rejected for mere sentiment.
Moreover, the working and other classes do submit to compulsion,
for we have it in our sanitary laws, and Workshops Acts; only
here it is restricted in its operation to the industrious portion
of the community, and only indolence is allowed the privilege
of free ignorance. But compulsory attendance would necessitate
F
�82
tlie establishment of free non-sectarian schools, at least in large
towns, and ultimately, perhaps, throughout the kingdom ; and the
cry is raised that an education in such schools would be a “godless
education.” A knowledge of the constitution of the human
body, to elucidate the laws of health, especially with reference to
cleanliness, ventilation, recreation, and diet, is godless—the
ordinary subjects of primary education are godless—unless issued
from the mint bearing the imprint of some denomination or sect.
With the bane the antidote should be supplied. An elementary
knowledge of natural history or physical science, should carry its
corrective in a catechism, and a knowledge of Scripture names and
dates should serve as a counterpoise to the dangers attendant on
reading, writing, and arithmetic. In a leading article on the
debate on education in the House of Commons last March, the
Times took much trouble to enforce the statement, that the good
expected from any new system of education would be nullified
by the dangerous lessons of home example, and that parents
must be educated. That is what the advocates of a new national
system desire—they wish to educate the parents of future
generations. Then again, it has been said that the League
proposes to educate children out of their religion. The advocates
of a free non-sectarian education are not actuated by hostility
to religion, but by hostility to ignorance and its results.
Religious instruction can still be given'—no one can hinder it;
but as there appears no prospect of an agreement as to what
should be considered religious teaching, the advocates of a
new free system of education wish to enable children to
become acquainted with the laws of God, regulating the material
world, and thus be guided to live in temperance, soberness, and
chastity; to learn and labour truly to get their own living in any
state of life to which they may be called. Deficient, however, as
the present voluntary system is acknowledged to be, even by its
own advocates, we would gladly admit that the clergy and
ministers of various denominations have performed a great work
in building up and supporting the present system of educa
tion. That it is now inefficient is to be ascribed not to
any neglect or shortcoming on their part, but to the inevitable
�83
march of events. Recognising the value of the present
system, the question arises : is there any possibility of co
operation ? Is it not possible to combine a new national free and
non-sectarian system with the existing denominational voluntary
system, and thus preserve the present system, or at least a large
part of it ? The new system would then gradually win its way in
public favour. With a desire to preserve the present system, I
jotted down the following rough notes, which I will submit to
your consideration :—1. That parents or guardians of children, of a
certain specified age, shall be required to send them to school
regularly and constantly, for a certain number of weeks in each year
■—Sunday-school attendance not to be counted; and those who
neglect the performance of this duty, shall be liable to a recurring
penalty, to be recovered by the inspector or sub-inspector of
schools for the district. The production of a school certificate of
attendance to be the only complete answer to the charge; the
exemptions from this rule of attendance being those children, who
are mentally or corporeally incapacitated from attendance, or from
receiving instruction, and also children who are receiving instruc
tion at home or elsewhere, from tutors, governesses, or parents.
Proper evidence of such instruction to be rendered to the inspector
of schools for the district, whenever required by him. 2. That
parents or guardians, who are unable to pay the ordinary school
fees shall be furnished with a pass, entitling their children to free
admission to any assisted, inspected school in the parish or district
in which they reside, and to assistance in procuring books, &c.
When there is room for choice, the parents to be allowed to select
a school. The fees for such pupils (by whatever name they may ‘
be known, or by whatever means they may be raised) to be paid to
the schools according to a certain fixed scale. That public and
private schools, and grammar schools, shall be registered upon pay
ment of a small registration fee, and shall then he allowed to grant
certificates of attendance ; due provision, of course, being made for
preventing any kind of traffic in certificates, and allowing the
Government Department superintending education the power of
refusing to register notoriously inefficient schools. 3. That all
national schools, British schools, and denominational schools, shall
�84
be entitled to be registered, and to receive free scholars, to be paid
for by rates or Government grants; provided the managers of such
schools submit to Government inspection, and accept a conscience
clause, specifying that they shall not allow religious instruc
tion of any kind to interfere with the ordinary secular instruc
tion, but that it shall be imparted at such times and in such
a manner as not to break or interrupt the routine of secular
studies. 4. In parishes or districts where there is no school
accommodation of this kind, for the reception of non-sectarian free
scholars, or where there is only insufficient accommodation of the
kind, the Government Department superintending education shall,
upon satisfactory representations of such deficiency, cause notice to
be given to the guardians of the poor, or other authorities, that
school buildings and teachers must be provided by the parish or
district, the cost to be defrayed by a rate levied on the district;
and where the proper authorities neglect to provide the necessary
school accommodation, then the Government shall intervene, and
provide a school or schools, educational appliances, and teachers,
and recover from the district the amount expended. Existing
schools, the managers of which refuse to adopt the conscience
clause, shall not be registered; and a district containing such
schools only, shall be considered as destitute of educational
facilities, and shall be required to provide free non-sectarian schools,
under local management and Government inspection.
RESOLUTION OE LONDON TRADES’
COUNCIL.
The President announced that Mr. George Odger was unable
to speak, as he had promised to do; but that he had sent the follow
ing resolution of the London Trades’ Council:—“This Council is of
opinion that the National Education League, whose object is the
education of the people, upon national and unsectarian principles,
is in every sense worthy of our support; therefore we appoint
our secretary, Mr. George Odger, to attend the congress to be held
in Birmingham ; and we pledge ourselves to use our best endeavours
in aid of so laudable a movement.”
�85
DISCUSSION.
Mr. Simons, of Merthyr Tydvil, opened the discussion by reading
the prospectus of an education society with which he was connected
in his own town; and he then said: Although an ardent sup
porter of the League, I venture to say that the march onward will
never cease, until every one of the principles of that programme is
adopted. I am willing to go with the League as far as we agree,
and whilst we are together I should like to endeavour to induce
you to march on with me, to the beacon which this programme offers
to you. Now, I want to make one observation upon what I call
a delusion and a snare—the conscience clause. Test the conscience
clause by this : is there any ardent thorough Protestant in this room
who, if he lived in the centre of a Roman Catholic community, with
the means of education entirely in the hands of the Roman Catholic
priest, would send his child to school there, with the protection
only of the conscience clause ? I have asked the question often
before, and have never had an answer in the affirmative. The
conscience clause, I repeat, is a delusion and a snare. It affords
no protection whatever, and it makes more necessary for the
youth of the country the prayer—“ Lead us not into temptation.”
I ask you all to consider the question of the conscience clause. The
grant of State aid to Remap Catholic schools, would virtually be
a grant for the purpose of teaching the Roman Catholic religion.
Believe me that I do not intend, that one word which escapes my
lips shall give pain; for the day has passed, happily, when differ
ences of opinion lead to hostility, or discord among fellow Christians.
My references to Catholics are made entirely upon principle ; I have
no objection to them as a body. Well, we know that if a grant
were given them for school purposes, it would substantially
be a grant for teaching the Roman Catholic religion in this
country. Bear in mind that they are about a quarter of the
entire population, and if four millions were given in grants
they would be entitled to one-fourth—one million given for
teaching the Roman Catholic religion. The logic of Roman
Catholics is irresistible, that so long as you maintain sectarian
�86
schools in this country, so long will they be entitled to teach in
them their religion, and to receive their proportion of Government
aid. That is a question which I have not heard put on any plat
form except when I have given utterance to it. Next, I would ask
how long in this country are the middle classes going to contribute
towards schools for the working classes ? I am here as a middle
class man, to say that no system of education will satisfy me, unless
the two classes are put upon exactly the same footing. We speak
of compulsion as a thing applicable only to one order of the
people. I am an advocate for the application of compulsion to
every class. I don’t know why the middle-class man should have
the opportunity of bringing up his child in ignorance, any more than
the working-class man. I am also an advocate for the institution
of imperial universities, and for this reason : after we get com
pulsory education, how long will it be before the people ask for a
further opportunity of advancing and brightening the intellects of
their children, and of fitting them to occupy any position in the
world, even up to that of the Lord Chancellor ?
Mr. Applegarth, secretary to the Amalgamated Society of
Carpenters and Joiners, followed : So much has been said in the
name of working men, that it is almost presumption on the part of
a working man to speak for his class; but as I conceive that much
has been said in their name, which is not exactly true, perhaps it
will not be out of place for me to say a few words. My claim to
speak is simply that I have lived and associated with working men
all the days of my life; and I am here, as the delegate of one of
the largest trade societies in the kingdom, to demand that education
shall be placed within the reach of every child, however poor,
however degraded. The first meeting of my fellow working men
that I addressed was about twelve years ago, the last one last
night. On every occasion I have tested the men in regard to
education, and I never yet found an exception to my own
opinion—that what we want is a national compulsory, unsectarian
system: Now, I have a little score to settle both with Mr. Edmund
Potter, M.P., and with the Archbishop of York, and I give notice
that I shall hit them very hard. The other day, the Archbishop of’
York ventured to say that, if an attempt were made to introduce
�87
a compulsory system of education, such a system would meet
with a hard reception from a large proportion of the working
classes. Well, then, Mr. Potter, in his place in the House of
Commons, said, too, that the working classes were opposed to
compulsion in connection with education.
Mr. Potter : No, no.
Mr. Applegarth : The Times is responsible for my statement;
and I am glad to hear Mr. Potter say “ No, no.” It is not the first
mistake the Times has made. To go back, then, to the Archbishop
of York. Wherever he gets his information from I can’t tell. For
a number of years I worked in different parts of the country, and
in every place I tested the working man upon this question of
education. For instance, at one meeting, at which Mr. Geo. Dawson
was in the chair, he distinctly asked, “ Do you agree with me that
we want a national compulsory, unsectarian system of education ?”
and not a dissenting voice did I hear. The working classes would
never feel compulsion, and they would be only too glad of the
opportunity to send their children to schools, where they would get
a good education. But no one knows better than the men them
selves, that there are amongst the working people two classes.
There is the sot, the careless and indifferent man, who has been so
long neglected, and degraded that he does not understand the value
of education; and him the other class, the better class of working
men, have to carry upon their backs. But those men who do not
understand the value of education, must be made to understand it.
The Archbishop of York said the voluntary system had done a
noble work, and that it was competent to meet all the requirements
of the future. I am not one to disparage the efforts of the clergy
in the voluntary system; but I will say this—that that portion of
the clergy which has done the real work in the education of the
people consists of underpaid curates, who would only be too glad to
get rid of this extra work, and get a little extra pay for the reli
gious services which they have to conduct. What has voluntaryism
done ? Why, it has provided school accommodation for two million
children; but for the want of that great principle, compulsion, there
are 700,000 vacant seats. We are told that this voluntary system
has provided 16,000 schools ; but so unequally are they distributed
�88
that in the diocese of Norfolk there are 120 parishes without one
day school. From the report of the Select Committee issued in
1866 we find that out of 14,895 parishes, there are 11,000 of them,
embracing a population of over six millions, that receive no direct
assistance from the State ; out of 755,000 children of the working
classes, from 10 to 12 years of age, only 250,000 are at school. Again
I ask what has the voluntary system done? According to 18th and
19th Victoria, chap. 34, the guardians of the poor have the power
to educate out-door pauper children from 4 to 16 years of age.
Now, we find that in nine counties of England, where there were
no less than 38,451 of these out-door pauper children, the guardians
educated the enormous number of 11, at an annual cost of £2. 4s. 8d.
That is what we have done under the voluntary system. Now,
next, if we have a compulsory system we must have, too, a free
system. The object of the League, I take it, is to work in contra
distinction to the present system, which helps those who are best
able to help themselves, leaving to starve and rot in ignorance those
who have not the power to help themselves, even if they had the
disposition. The object of the League is to help those who are least
able to help themselves. Some people have said that they fear that
if we have a free system of education the working classes would
not know how to appreciate it. Well, if they do not know how to
appreciate it we must make them know. I have seen the school
systems both of America and Switzerland, and I never came across
a man in either of those countries, who felt that he was not doing
his duty because he allowed his children to go to a free school. And
what can be said of the people of America, and Switzerland, would
no doubt be said of the people of England, if our educational system
were made compulsory. It is no use trying to mix up a national
education with any portion of religion, however small the dose.
We are not prepared to have gospel and geography mixed together.
The working classes want education. They know that the classes
above them have been tinkering with this question, whilst vice and
misery and prostitution, have piled up a colossal mountain of iniquity.
If the League knows its duty, it will go in for a compulsory, un
sectarian, and free system—for a measure which will put high and
low upon the same level in an educational sense. And now, sir, I
�89
am here to give my adhesion to the National Education League, not
that I think that its principles reach exactly and altogether the
wants of the working classes, hut because it goes a step in the right
direction; and I shall be only too glad if the Legislature see their
course to a thoroughly radical measure.
Mr. Edmund Potter, M.P., speaking in explanation, said : I am
sorry Mr. Applegarth has not watched my course more closely,
because I believe that if one Member of Parliament more than
another has expressed himself definitely, forcibly, and frequently
upon this subject, it is myself. Speaking in the House, in reply to
Mr. Forster on the question of Trades’ Unions, I said that no Bill
would be of any use unless it was accompanied by compulsory
education. Before then, I spoke upon the educational question
itself, and no such opinion ever escaped my lips as that which
is attributed to me. I should not, too, have been charged with
opposition to compulsion, for I was one of the strongest advocates
of the Factory Acts, the great benefit of which was, as I said
in the House, that they gave compulsory, unsectarian education.
Mr. Applegarth : I.am delighted to hear from Mr. Potter that
he did not say that which he was reported in the Times to have
said. I have placed the report in his hands.
Mr. Green, Chairman of the Birmingham Trades’ Council,
continued the discussion. He said : I take it that what the League
especially wants to know from me, is whether the working men of
this town are in favour of its scheme, and whether they think that
the system of education to be adopted should be compulsory,
unsectarian, and free. Now, Mr. Applegarth, speaking for the
working men he represents, said they- were; and I, too, have to
report that in this locality, as throughout the length and breadth of
the land, a very large section of the working men are in favour of
the scheme. The society which sends me here is composed of men
of all politics, and of all religions—from the Bed Republican to the
milk-and-water Liberal-Conservative, from the Roman Catholic to
the latest discovered sect, the Hallelujah Band; yet when we dis
cussed this question of to-day, and of sending a delegate here, there
was not a dissentient voice. A few weeks ago a paper upon the
subject of compulsory and unsectarian education was read by Mr.
�90
Hibbs, a working man, before a national conference of Trades’
Unions in this town. Everyone voted for the principle, and one of
the strongest supporters was Mr. Wood, of Manchester, a strong
Tory. This matter, therefore, cannot be considered, and ought
not to be considered, a party question; but it seems to me that
clergymen seem determined to go against the working man on this,
as on some past occasions. A little while ago we heard the question,
why does not the working man go to Church? I don’t know
whether the interrogators drew a list of reasons; but if they did,
and they have not inserted this, they may add, opposition to the
scheme of unsectarian education as one of them. A local paper
says that we wish lo eliminate religious teaching from education.
Well, if that religious teaching is founded upon dogmas or creeds,
we do wish to do so. To teach a child truth is to teach it religion,
and by teaching it that, you advance it in the path in which you
wish it to tread. The clergy object to this system of the League
because under it they will not teach their creed; but I can tell
them this—that if they want to get the good-will of the people, if
they want to diminish pauperism and crime, and to raise the people
to an appreciation of what is noble and good, they should support,
not oppose, the scheme. Under it I believe the nation would pro
gress in all that is good, and those who now ask the question, why
do not working men attend a place of worship 1 would then have
to set about building more places of worship for them to attend. It
is the duty of everyone who wishes to see the children of the
country grow up, in the way they should go, and kept out of vice
and poverty, to support this scheme of the League. The working
men do not make a great deal of noise about it, but I can assure
you that they feel upon the subject very acutely indeed; for they
do not like to see the class immediately above them taking advan
tage of all the endowed educational means of the country, whilst
they are left without anything at all. They desire a better state
of things. There is no need of discussion as to compulsion—that
is settled ; and the working men of Birmingham, I am authorised
to say, will do all they can to help on a system of national com
pulsory, unsectarian education, although they would prefer that that
education should be secular.
�91
Sir C. Rawlinson gave his support to the programme of the
League. He conceived that the new educational system must be sup
ported by local rates, supplemented by Government aid. He held that
opinion upon two clear grounds. He protested against the education
of the country being handed over entirely to Government, because in
the 'first place the administration would in that case turn to rank
jobbery and gross expenditure; and, secondly, he did nor want to see
education ’ conducted without reference to the principle of local selfgovernment, the vigour and success of which was the best guarantee
for the liberties of England. It was all very well to laugh at
corporations, but they had been the safeguards of liberty. In
how many evil days had the Corporation of the City of London
stood forth in defence of the people ? For these reasons he was
extremely sorry to hear anybody say that the education grant
ought to come exclusively from Government. On the other hand,
he objected to the schools being supported wholly from local rates,
because, for a variety of reasons, it was desirable and even necessary
to have Government inspection. He need not pursue this matter. It
was obvious that for the sake of some degree of uniformity, and for
the purpose of ensuring efficiency in places where the local authori
ties might possibly not be disposed to do their duty, and for other
reasons, it was desirable that the whole system should be under the
control of a central power. Then with regard to the religious
difficulty, surely the country had had sufficient experience to
have found out by this time that it was impossible to base
education upon religion. He appealed to the whole people, then,
to aid the active spirits of the League to base religion upon
education. That was the natural course. It was a miscon
ception, which in practice led to disastrous failure, to suppose
that religion could be made the basis of education. Religion
was the flower of life, and no greater fallacy had ever beguiled
the people of this or any other country than to suppose
that it was possible to begin with religion. How could it ever
have entered anybody’s mind, that a child of seven or eight years
of age was made better, or was benefited in any conceivable way,
by repeating unchangeably the words of a catechism which it did
not understand 1 He saw, the other day, a child who had returned
�92
from a high-class school with a prize for divinity. How did he
win it? “I went,” he said, “through the whole of the kings of
Israel, and I said two Psalms by heart.” It was a farce. He
would not have joined the League if he supposed that the educa
tion it proposed was to be godless. If he were in power, he
would propose that the American Common Schools should be
the foundation of our schools. The instructions given to the
teachers and others connected with those schools, as to the
manner in which they were to endeavour to discharge their
functions, were well worth considering. They were read in
Birmingham a short time ago by Lord Lyttelton, but, unfortunately,
very little attention was paid to them. The directions were:—
“ All instructors of youth are to exert their best endeavours to
impress upon the minds of the children and youth committed to
their care, principles of piety and justice, a strict regard to truth,
love of their country, humanity, and universal benevolence,
sobriety, industry, and frugality, chastity, and moderation, and
those other virtues which are the ornaments of human society.”
That was the foundation of the Common School in America. It was
unsectarian ; and in an excellent pamphlet, which everybody ought
to read, in reply to those who said this was a godless education
(how anybody could, after full consideration, say so was inconceiv
able), Mr. Frazer answered : “ If the cultivation of some of the
choicest intellectual gifts bestowed by God—the perception,
memory, taste, judgment, and reason; if the creation of habits
of punctuality, attention, and industry, the reading of a daily
portion of God’s Word, and the daily saying of Christ’s universal
prayer—if all this is said to be the cultivation of clever devils,
it would be vain, I think, to argue with such prejudice.” He
believed that the cultivation of any one of God’s good gifts, or the
attempt to develop any one right principle or worthy habit, so far
as they went, were steps, not only in the direction of morality,
but of piety and real religion. Was it possible that a clergyman
would rather have in his Sunday school, or in his church, to
hear the truths of religion, or the dogmas of theology, a number
of densely ignorant children or other persons, than a corresponding
number of bright, intelligent, well-taught persons, such as the
�93
national schools would produce? Which could be most rapidly
and thoroughly influenced by the teaching of the Sunday school
or the pulpit ? He was sorry to hear that in Birmingham a party
was got up, to oppose and denounce those who felt themselves hound,
by the necessities of the case, to endeavour to educate the masses
of the nation. He did not believe that if any of those men could
get into their minds the real state of things—if they would
endeavour to form a conception of the appalling magnitude of the
facts—they would take the course they seemed determined upon ;
but he trusted that the League would disseminate facts upon facts,
as to the number of utterly destitute children in this country, in
order to rouse the attention of persons who at present seemed to be
satisfied to sit with folded hands, doing nothing to avert the evil
which, it was scarcely any exaggeration to say, threatened to over
whelm the country. What with ignorance, poverty, and crime, in
which so large a portion of the population was steeped, it was
impossible to look to the future without gloomy apprehensions.
If England was to maintain her present position among the nations
—if she was to maintain her high character for order and civiliza
tion—if she was to maintain her pre-eminence for commerce, it
would not be owing to her army, and certainly not to her poor
houses or her gaols, but to her having a great, intelligent, and
well-educated labouring class—that class upon whose intelligence,
honesty, and sobriety the whole strength and existence of the
kingdom depended.
Sir W. Guise : After those who have gone before me, I feel
that my position is doubtful, for I have no pretensions to represent
anybody but myself. We have been favoured of late with long
reports of Social Science meetings, Church Congresses, Episcopal
Conferences, and so on, and at all of them the question of education
has been a prominent item of discussion ; but after reading these
reports with considerable care I have come to the conclusion
that there was no result arrived at whatever. The fact is that in
those assemblies the matter is taken up in so perfunctory
a manner that it is not likely that anything of value could come of
it. Everything charitable, kind, and good is talked of but nothing
of the smallest value in a practical fashion is the result. I come
�94
now among practical men, and I embrace most heartily and
enthusiastically the programme of this platform-—compulsory,
unsectarian, national education. The denominational system has
been tried and it has failed. It has failed to reach a very large,
a very important, and, I may add, a growing and a dangerous class
of the community; and it is evident that that class never will
be reached by the means provided by the denominational system,
the fact being that the teachers under that system cannot shake
themselves free from creeds and catechismsj and I have long
felt myself that these creeds and catechisms, as taught by differ
ent sects, are becoming more and more an impediment to free
Christian intercourse amongst us. I am afraid we shall never
get rid of them—certainly not without a national unsectarian
system of education. I quite agree with the gentleman who has
gone before me, that you cannot have religion until you have
•education. Nobody who has ever been engaged in education can
help feeling that in teaching great moral truths—our duty to
God and man-—we are teaching religion. Education, as has
just been shown, must precede religion. Catechisms are utterly
unintelligible to children in general, and even to a great many
grown-up people. With regard to making money grants to
denominational schools, it should be remembered that if you make
grants to such schools in this country, you cannot refuse them to
the Catholics in Ireland. We have seen their object. The
hierarchy in that country have put forward a programme, desiring to
grasp the whole of the education of the youth of that country. It
is perfectly natural. Every faith that has faith in itself proselytises,
but England and Scotland will not consent to hand over Ireland
to the exclusive control of the priesthood. But you cannot
consistently insist upon that for yourselves, which you are not
prepared to concede to others. I used the same argument the
other day to our bishop, when I declined to attend an episcopal
conference on the subject. I feel that the system of denominational
education, subsidised by the State, has failed and must be given up.
We have then in front of us this fact—that education has become
an absolute necessity, not merely because of the danger of having
an uneducated class amongst us, but because it is impossible to
�95
look abroad upon this dark mass of uneducated humanity without
feeling that they were made for better things—that their powers
were given them for other purposes, than to allow them to waste
in ignorance, vice, and crime ; and it is our business, as a brother
hood, to stretch out our hands to those who cannot help themselves,
and help them to raise themselves in the scale of humanity. I am
not one for pulling down those who are above, to the level of
those who are below. I appreciate far too highly the value of
intellect, civilization, and refinement, to wish to see any portion
taken away ; but I wish to see the day come when those who are
below me may be be able to partake of some of the benefits of the
civilization which I enjoy. For these reasons, I have very great
pleasure in joining the association with all my heart.
The Hon. Auberon Herbert said it was clear that the voluntary
system could not cover the whole work. The word itself, without
any other facts, showed that. In a district which wished to do its
duty, and with parents who would send their children to school, the
voluntary system was all that was necessary ; but what was to be
done in a district which had no wish to do its duty and where
parents would not send their children to school'? Therefore it was
quite clear that by the side of the voluntary system another must
be placed. They were also, he thought, agreed that the system
they were going to introduce must be complete in itself. To use
Mr. Dawson’s excellent words, it must be a system of “ lucid sim
plicity,” and therefore he ventured to hope that before the Congress
broke up they would define the word “unsectarian” somewhat more
precisely than had yet been done. He took that opportunity of
expressing his entire subordination to those with whom he was
acting, in the same manner as Mr. Fawcett had done ; but it would
save them much difficulty hereafter if they construed that word
“ unsectarian” severely and precisely. He believed that if there
was religious teaching at all in the schools, it would be a constant
difficulty, for this reason—that if it was real in its nature, there
would be constant intrigue as to the appointment of a teacher ; and
other difficulties of the same nature would arise. If, on the con
trary, the religious teaching was not to be real—if they were using
a word in order to satisfy a few persons—it was unworthy of them
�96
to put out a sham. It would be to the advantage of all of them
that the State should be manly enough to take upon itself openly
its own duty, leaving the Church to take upon itself its duties. He
scarcely.need add a word as to the fact that unsectarian or secular
education was not godless education. The feeling of the meeting
had been expressed very strongly in favour of the old truth, that the
gates of heaven were upon earth, and that to make good citizens for
the heavenly kingdom, good citizens must be made for the earthly
kingdom. What had to be done was to see how the two systems
-—the new and the old—could be interwoven. That which they
had to ask seemed to him to be this : to be allowed to introduce
their unsectarian system in two instances. One should be whore the
district failed in its duty and did not provide sufficient school
ac’cbmmodation.
In that case the Government or the District
Board should have power to say to the district: You must provide
schools, you must rate yourselves for them, and they must be unsec
tarian. The second case in which there should be power to intro
duce the unsectarian system should be where the district itself
desired it. They had all realized that where there was a rate there
must be an unsectarian system, and where there was an unsectarian
system there must be a fate. As regards the old schools, he did not
see why they should not for a long time maintain their place by the
side of the new system, if only (and this was absolutely necessary)
they made certain concessions. A system of compulsion could not
be carried out unless the schools accepted a thoroughly satisfactory
conscience clause, unless they put themselves under Government
inspection, and unless they kept a register of attendance. The
present system need not be deranged further than by the acceptance
of these three things. They had heard and would hear a greatmany appeals against the proposed system, in the name of religion.
He would warn those who made such appeals that it was very pos
sible, if this controversy lasted a very long time—-should the over
whelming necessity for the education of two millions of children be
not speedily satisfied (he did not state the numbers on his own
authority, but took them as they had been given)—should those
two millions of children be left to perish in ignorance, whilst the
“ religious difficulty” was debated, it was very possible that the
�97
words “religion” and “ irreligion” might change places, and it would
be thought that there could he no act more irreligious than that of
those, who would be responsible for the delay. When he saw a
large part of the working classes, as a pledge of their earnestness,
willing to submit themselves to a law of compulsion, not for their
advantage, but for that of their children, he felt that that act on
their part, was far more religious than the words of the Archbishop
of York,when he appealed to the working men, to allow their selfish
fears and jealousies, to stand between them and this act of self
sacrifice.
The meeting then adjourned.
SOIREE IK THE TOWN HALL.
The members of the League were entertained by the Mayor in
the Town Hall, in the evening, at a Soiree. There were upwards of
800 ladies and gentlemen present.
G
�SECOND DAY.
On the reassembling of the meeting on Wednesday morning,
the Chairman (Mr. Dixon, M.P.), announced that Aiderman
Thomas Phillips had given £1,000 to the funds of the League.
COMPULSION.
The Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams, Vicar of Broadchalke, Wilts,
read a paper on “ The Legislative Enforcement of Attendance, par
ticularly in Rural Districts.” He said :—I find myself in this paper
arguing some things which do not, it seems, need arguing in Bir
mingham at all, and therefore I shall not read all that I have
written. For instance, I find myself saying a good word for the
Conscience Clause, which a gentleman from Merthyr Tydvil
yesterday said was a delusion and a snare. That arises from the
fact that in Wiltshire, in a meeting of the clergy, I have been the
only clergyman in the room who did not sign a petition against the
Conscience Clause, as being too liberal and sacrificing too much.
And just before I left South Wales to go into Wiltshire, the same
thing happened. There, also, I was the only one who would not
sign a petition against the Conscience Clause, because it gave up too
much of the rights of the Church. Hence you see how it arises
that a person of average sanity otherwise, comes here to say a good
word for that, which you once offered, but will not offer again. I
shall pass over some matters in my paper which are of an antedeluvian character, and touch on some others lightly which are
subjects for reasonable argument. I shall leave out some remarks
on the agricultural labourer, intended to show that he is not so
ignorant as is sometimes said, and that he is not tyrannised
over by the farmers. Then I go on as follows :—The range
of human thought is so complex and diversified by ramifica
�99
tions, that hardly any question is so simple (e. g. the idiom of
a particle) as not to entail upon persons treating it, the risk of
being occasionally pushed forward into the discussion of difficult
problems. A similar remark would hold good almost equally, of tha
field of human action. Only, as the mass of mankind are compelled
to act in some way, common sense has taught them the necessity
of habitually setting aside, with a view to joint action, questions
however important, not relevant to the matter in hand. The most
ardent politicians on different sides, are not necessarily prevented
from transacting commercial business together. Institutions, such
as hospitals or asylums, in which human suffering appeals to bene
volence, present a still more obvious field in which the propriety
of setting aside the jealousies incidental to divided opinion meets
with general acknowledgment. It may be true, that the strongest
moral inducements to the benevolent action in which men agree,
are derived from the religious sentiment in which they differ. But
such a circumstance is not found fatal to co-operation ; nor would
it, I apprehend, be a just conclusion, that joint action for a definite
purpose implies an absence of proper zeal in respect of other duties
or aspirations, upon which unanimity has not yet been attained.
On this principle, although my personal feeling, no less than any
clerical prepossession, might induce me to prefer the lively presence
of the religious element in any system of teaching ; yet, if either
the intellectual differences which we have been taught to associate
with the religious sentiment, or the social organisations which have
arisen as their embodiments, impede the introduction into our
schools of theological standards, I still desire the school to be
preserved, and those objects of school teaching on which we can
agree promoted, even at the price of setting aside whatever becomes
an entanglement. I refrain from pursuing this topic, because in
those districts with which I am best acquainted, the conscience
clause, when enforced as a reality, sufficiently meets the difficulty,
and the treatment of the more complex cases of large towns will
fall into abler hands. Turning to the special subject of this paper,
the desirableness of enforcing attendance in schools, especially in
rural districts, I find myself still met by that complexity of con
siderations which belongs to action of a public kind. It would be
�100
foolish, to recommend a legislative policy on this subject, without
considering the objections to such a policy which arise from the
social circumstances of the country. Hence I must ask so much of
your attention, as may show that this aspect of things has not been
forgotten, to the condition of the labourer in the south-west of
England. We do not, in Wiltshire, admit the accuracy of the highlycoloured pictures, which benevolent writers have sometimes drawn
of a dead level of ignorance among our labourers. We find many
varieties in the race ; some very good, and, in proportion to their
rank in life, intelligent; others of various degrees of badness. We
see no great wit in classing together men so unlike each other,
under the generic name Hodge, anymore than in classifying
literary artists as Dodge. Again, we do not admit that farmers
are, as a general rule, tyrannical, or forgetful of the claim of the
labouring class to humane consideration. The price of labour is
what it will fetch ; and farmers can, as little as any other class in the
community, permit themselves to be dragged down into pauperism,
by undertaking payments on a large scale, beyond the value of
that which they receive. One of the primary requisites for their
business, amidst the vicissitudes of the seasons and the growing
magnitude of their transactions, is nerve ; and one object upon which
nerve has to employ itself is the maintenance of discipline. Even
on the strong supposition, that the maintenance of a due supply of
labourers in adequate comfort should be naturally regarded as a
preliminary charge on the land, the class upon which the benevo
lent portion of such a requirement would justly fall, are not the
immediate employers, whose rents have been fixed according to the
common rules of demand and supply. Again, observing, how much
is deducted by unfavourable weather, and by short days, from the
value of the services of labourers (about three-fourths of whom the
farmer maintains through the year), I must demur to the
criticisms often lavished upon the heads of agricultural employers,
as part of the wrong habitually done to silent men. But after
all qualifications, the life of our rural labourer is hard. Suppos
ing his weekly nine shillings, virtually stretched by piece-work,
harvest-time, and allowances, to thirteen (which is an extremely,
favourable estimate), it barely covers the first necessaries of
�101
life • and, if the family are numerous, hardly gives them bread.
Fire, clothing, rent, the distant approach to luxury involved in tea,
sugar, bacon, are still to he met. When one first observes these
people one exclaims, “ How do they ever live?” We gradually dis
cover that they live in part, by the aid of their children’s labour.
From six or seven years old to sixteen or seventeen, the young
rustic goes through a rising scale of crow-scaring, and horse keeping,
for which he receives wages rising from eighteen-pence, to six or
seven shillings. Hence the boys in a family are a treasure. The
girls are, in our account, not so useful. Now the question to
which I must ask the attention of the members of our League,
and for the sake of which these details have been introduced,
is this :—Are we justified in asking the Legislature to interpose,
not only between parent and child, but between the children
and their bread; or in desiring to remove, in our scholastic
zeal, into a sphere of book-work, these poor children of the
poor, who are at present more usefully employed? Would
there not be some cruelty in such removal? Nay, even some
danger of so narrowing the possibilities of subsistence, as to
bring the parental and self-preserving instincts into collision ?
Again, this question comes clogged with an allegation. It is
alleged, that unless children go young into the fields they will not
be worth their salt; that they are not improved by schooling in
books, for the work which will be the business of their life.
Hence we are invited to let well alone, or to fall back upon the
voluntary system, which suits the genius of Englishmen, and has
made them what they are; and if there be any point at which
the influence of agricultural employers is injuriously exercised, it
is in the form of pressure, to secure the services of children at an
age tender in the judgment of the parents, who profit by it; more
so, in that of physiological observers. Agriculture is not the
only employment on which discussions of this kind have been
known. Our answer to the question raised will be found most
easily by a reference to the existence of the Factory Acts, but
more convincingly by a consideration of the principle on which
these Acts are founded, while it may be fortified by moral reflections.
We may ascribe in part to Christianity, in part to the growing
�102
humanity of the age, and, not least, to the democratic element in
our constitution, the wide acceptance of this principle—that the
human being is not to be altogether sacrificed to mechanical excel
lence in his particular calling. Man is to be made man before he
is labourer or artisan. Suppose we could develope some useful
animal instincts more strongly by surrendering what is human, we
ought not to do so. Thus, if it were true (which is a large con
cession for argument’s sake) that a little early book-work dis
inclined men for plodding field-work, we are still bound to awaken
in them a nature more than merely animal. Indeed, the possi
bility of such a collateral issue being raised, tends to throw light
on our main question ; for it indicates the existence on the part of
the parents, of so low a degree of interest on the subject as may
almost be called indifference, and it fastens our attention on the
prevalence among employers of views such as our League may
fairly counteract. Against the element of passive indifference, and
against such a low estimate of education as amounts to dis
couragement, the Legislature of the country may be called upon to
set its higher intelligence in operation. The province of an
enlightened Legislature comprehends care for the physical develop
ment of the young, and (as I have contended) for the possibilities
of their moral or mental training. Say, that in its action towards
these ends the Legislature, should indirectly suggest to our peasantry
something of that foresight which their social superiors are com
pelled to exercise in marrying, or something of that effort, on
behalf of their children’s minds which they acknowledge a duty
on behalf of their bodies—and say even that it opens to charitable
persons a new object, or fresh direction, for the aid which they often
lavish upon the poor—none of these collateral results would be so
injurious as to destroy the argument for the enforcement of primary
education. My proposal to the League is this : Let the Legislature
be asked, in pursuance of its own inquiries, to fix an age (my own
tentative suggestion would be ten) within which field-labour and
stable-labour should be restricted in kind, or forbidden altogether.
Let there be a second limit of age (I would tentatively suggest
twelve), within which employment of boys should only be per
mitted upon the production of satisfactory proof, that schooling for
�103
three or four years has secured fair results. There would be no
difficulty in either creating an officer for each union, hundred, or
larger district, or in selecting from our overseers, surveyors,
inspectors, tax-gatherers, some one who should be charged with
the duty of verifying a certificate from the Government Inspector
of Schools. Only I would deprecate the selection for this purpose
of the clergyman, whose province, lying properly in persuasion,
ought not to be encumbered with compulsory requirements.
Suppose such a system were enforced, it would reach in the first
place all the outlying squatters on the borders of parochial civilisa
tion, whose children are too often a reproach to us. Secondly, it
would stimulate opinion among the average peasantry; and,
thirdly, it would throw the shield of its powerful protection over
the mother, who too often sees her child taken from school sooner
than she likes to think of, and sooner than necessity requires.
Fourthly, it would enable us to bring to bear upon a riper age those
instructive agencies which, in the absence of preliminary training,
are almost thrown away. The night-school, of which I speak from
experience, cannot possibly be a substitute for a proper amount of
early day schooling; as anyone who observes how many of the
higher classes, after a day of hard business or hard pleasure, sit
down in the evening to the study of a Greek author, will easily
conceive. Rain and darkness, with a mile or two to walk, wet
clothes and weary eyes, hardly suit the first initiation in the
mysteries of book-work. But where the taste for reading, writing,
and calculating has been early awakened, the night-school affords a
chance of such a recurrence to such things as may be a refresh
ment. A like remark would hold good of penny readings,
lectures, newspapers. (Local journals, with local news, and an
element of religious gossip, are welcome ; but we are a long way in
Wiltshire from the bewildering topics of London journalism). I
do not speak without having tried these things. My experience
convinces me that all such agencies, and I will venture to add that
(supposing the Christianity of England to be something different
from that of Abyssinia), the instructions of the pulpit, would have a
more wholesome or energetic operation, if preceded in early life by
some three years of compulsory education for the labourer’s
�104
child. The suggestion which others have made of half-time, or of
requiring school attendance for a portion of the day, or of the year,
is one which I could only admit as valuable, upon the same con
dition as the agencies already glanced at—namely, upon the con
dition that some three years of continuous education had been its
preliminary. Nor ought mere infancy to count, if included in these
three years ? The ultimate result aimed at would be the production
of a more intelligent—therefore, we must trust, a happier—order of
men, in our rural parishes. The fear that such men would be found
less devoted to their work, or less skilful in it, less virtuous, or
harder to govern, seems to me the most chimerical fear that ever
was entertained. Men are far more easily governed than brutes;
only they require to have the fitness of things shown to them. A
public school, recruited from our higher classes, is far more amenable
to discipline than would be the same number of young rustics,
with their alternations of blind credulity and obstinate incredulity,
both guided, not by knowledge, but by invincible self-will.
Schools do wisely not to pretend to anticipate the experience of
life. But intelligence counts for something, even in handling a
spade, certainly in managing a steam-engine. That intelligence
should apply itself to the improvement of its own condition, does
not involve unfaithfulness to the interests of its employer. One
of the most direct, and in my judgment one of the happiest,
results of education, would be to increase the facilities for com
paring the value of labour in different parts of the world. It
is not important that our labourers should attend the meet
ings of the British Association; but it is very desirable that
they should be able to inform themselves how to place their con
dition on a level with their fellows at home or abroad. Nor does
it appear to me that there would be any injustice to employers, if
such a peaceful and voluntary redistribution of labour as I con
template, were to leave the natural laws of demand and supply free
to operate in the assessment of wages, instead of permitting these
to be governed by a calculation (perhaps humane) of the pos
sibilities of subsistence. At present, a certain percentage of the
labourers in each parish is unattached, or employed only out of
charity during the slack season of the year. If such men tend to
�105
keep down the price of labour, they are also a perpetual threat to
the rates. Hence a voluntary sifting of our rural population
would be a gain to the remaining peasantry; but also to the
ratepayer. Probably, in time, rates might be much diminished,
though hardly swept away. Suppose, as another result, that our
political economists and our legislators should find themselves
called upon to exercise their joint sciences in rendering the con
dition of the labourer, by means of house and pasture-land,
so attractive as to prevent the depopulation of districts already
sparsely populated, I should consider the result not unworthy
of means so peaceful and so innocent as simple education.
It would not grieve me if, by a natural process, meat and milk
were earned, and enjoyed more largely as earnings, by the poor
and by their children. This plan of enabling our poor to place
themselves by intelligence, on a level with their fellows else
where, has nothing in common with schemes for the artificial
depression of the higher, in order to bring them down to
the lower. Again, we should not grudge the labourer whatever
acquired habit of intelligent locomotion may be requisite, to
prevent a plentiful harvest, which gladdens so many classes in the
community, from bringing to him only a lowering of his wages. I
am not blaming a process due to natural causes; but I desire the
equally natural means of adjustment. Again, if the waste of life
in our large towns requires constantly to be repaired by an influx
from the rural population, such a process would become more
salutary as the raw material was improved. "We are apt m rural
districts ‘ to conceive of society in general, as a Providential
scheme, in which protection is the duty of one part, and submis
sion of the other. While I readily acknowledge the just mutual
interdependence of all ranks, and no word ever escapes me
in my ministrations calculated to set class against class, I see
reason sometimes to regret a taint of surviving feudalism, and to
dread the spread of ingrained mendicancy. It is not wholesome
that any class of men should be unable to help themselves. The
truest, the most permanent, of all forms of charity, would be that
which should restore this almost forgotten power. Because educa
tion is the most effective instrument to that holy end, it deserves
�106
promotion ; and because it cannot be adequately promoted without
aid from the strong arm of the law, I applaud this National Educa
tion League for inscribing on its banners the unpopular word com
pulsion. I hat word ought not in our age to have the same alarm
ing sound, as it had under the dynasty of the Stuarts or the Tudors.
For in proportion as our Constitution receives its full popular de
velopment, it ought to be discerned that the State is only a name
for the People, giving itself on a large scale the benefit of self-conscious
organisation. Here the jealousies, too natural in times of repression,
with which the smaller social bodies once regarded the central
authority, ought to be softened until they ultimately pass away,
and the great commonwealth of our country, expressing its mind
deliberately in the Senate, should be regarded (in the Apostle’s
words) as the nurse and mother of us all. If I have not
wearied the meeting, I will venture to add a few illustrative
remarks on some collateral points. It may be assumed that
this League will not have for its object the establishment of
new schools, to the detriment of those which exist in satisfactory
working order. Again, it is by no means a necessity that the sup
port of a school by rates, or other form of public money, should
interfere with the exaction of such payments on the part of the
children as may be easily obtained, or of such as may be found
useful in giving the education a value in the eyes of the parents.
Again, it does not follow, because we deliberately set aside such
sectarian forms of religion as include proselytism as an essential
element, that we are therefore bound to surrender the contribu
tions to man’s intellectual growth which may be derived from
literature of a sacred kind. What is called the denominational
difficulty, may seem in some cases to be only merging itself in the
form of the Scriptural difficulty; and this may happen the more in
cases where religious bodies are not agreed as to the relations of the
co-ordinate authority of the Bible, the Church, and the personal
Conscience, or Reason. But I am persuaded no such difficulty need
be found insuperable in practice. Most religious persons are
agreed that, on the ground of reverence, the Bible should not be
degraded into a mechanical lesson-book for reading, as a primer or
a horn-book. Most men of the world (like Mr. Roebuck, at Salis
�107
bury) are eager in proclaiming that many useful lessons are to be
learnt from modern history and from secular literature. Again, all
persons who have accepted frankly the principle of the Con
science Clause (though I fear its operation still needs extension and
enforcement) will concede, and even contend, that denominational
inferences from Scripture lessons are not to be pressed upon children
against the wish of their parents. It is a matter of experience, that
very energetic Dissenters will let their children attend the schools of
a clergyman, whose doctrines they disapprove, provided they are sure
of his good faith in the matter of abstinence from proselytism.
So when once it is understood that in schools supported by public
money, rates or taxes, the Bible is to have but an indirectly
religious influence, and is not to be employed for any denominational
purpose whatsoever, the difficulty will vanish. There will still
remain a treasury of sacred poetry, history, precepts, religious
instances and examples, which may subserve the noblest ends of the
teacher’s office, without prejudice to the conscience of the parent.
But if influential persons, or important bodies of men, remain
amongst us, who are not contented with such a practical application
of the principle of the conscience clause, but contend for the
enforcement upon children of points in which large classes of the
community are not agreed, the survival of such persons, or bodies,
amongs' us, is one of the strongest reasons which could be devised
for calling into existence this national League for securing the
education of every child in England and Wales. Let me end
with a story, and a reflection. A man in my parish could not
read, and his wife could not read; but they possessed a book
the library of their household. He said, with touching gen
erosity, “ Best give him (i.e., the book), to some one else; he is
no use to any of we.” Now, it is often imagined that such sayings
belong to the generation whose childhood was in days long by
gone ; when “ there was not the talk of schools there is now.”
My own observation convinces me that the tares grow as fast as
the wheat grows ; that the cultivation of human life is a constant
struggle against enemies, whose activity equals, if not exceeds any
which is exercised against them. Hence I conclude that we
require stronger remedies than anything short of legislative action
�108
can supply. If we continue in our present course, sending infancy
to school, childhood into the stable and the field, manhood to the
beerhouse, old age to the workhouse, the second generation
hence will, in fifty years more, still find men whose library
is a solitary book, and who may be ignorant enough, if not
generous enough, to exclaim, “ Best give him to some one else; he
is no use to any of we.”
ALDERMAN RUMNEY ON COMPULSION.
Aiderman Rumney, of Manchester, read a paper on “ Compul
sory Education.” He said :—The present educational system has
been in operation a sufficient time to test its value. The controversy
with the voluntaries, commencing with the introduction of the
Minutes of Council, ceased long ago, and there has been no hin
drance to the efficient working of the system. The Government
has rather been in advance of the people, in its willingness to con
tribute funds for educational purposes. The voluntaries, although
withdrawing from the controversy, have not withdrawn from their
share of their work, and the results are—the educational condition
of England at the present moment. What might have been the
state of things if the voluntary principle, pure and simple, had
been adopted, cannot now be determined. Its advocates may say
with some truth, “ It has never had a fair trial;” but it is certain
that the schools aided by public funds, and the schools supported
by voluntary contributions, have not together succeeded in educat
ing more than a small _portion of the children of the working
classes, and that both in country districts and in populous places
there is a mass of ignorance truly appalling. The Duke of Marl
borough may express his satisfaction with things as they are, but
most men who have given attention to the subject are generally
dissatisfied, while scarcely a meeting is held in town or country
at which the ignorance of the people is not deplored, and methods
of instruction urged upon them. Without troubling the Conference
with voluminous statistics, I would only refer to two or three state
ments as illustrative and typical. In a return called the “ Parishes
Return,” made to the House of Lords, it appears there are 14,877
parishes in England and Wales. Of these only 7,40G are reported
�109
by the Committee of Council as having schools fulfilling the required
conditions of approved schools ; 2,779 as inspection schools, but
not entitled to capitation fees ; and 4,692 parishes respecting which
there is no evidence of any good schools at all, although of course
in many such, doubtless, good schools not inspected may exist. The
character of these 7,406 approved schools may be learned from the
fact, that of all the children registered in 1868, only 60 per cent,
were sufficiently advanced to be presented for examination to Her
Majesty’s Inspectors; while of these only 67 per cent, passed in
reading, writing, and arithmetic ; and only a fourth were prepared
for an examination in the higher standards. Canon Morris, at one
time Inspector of Schools in Staffordshire, wrote thus :—“ Con
sidering how many schools are still inefficient, and how in the best
schools the majority of the children leave before reaching the
first class, I fear I should be rather over than under the mark
if I said that one-fifth or one-sixth part of the children of the
country are being reached by our improved system of educa
tion.” Inspector the Rev. W. W. Howard, speaking of his district
jn Devonshire, says :—“ Looking to the small number of schools
in the district in which efficient teaching is given, and
the small result of such teachings from irregularity of attendance
and other causes, I am convinced that some legislative measure is
needed, which shall secure better means of education, and shall
compel the attendance of children, that they may benefit by the
education offered.” Of Birmingham, Mr. Jesse Collings says :—
“Out of 45,000 children there were 21,696 wandering about the
streets, neither at school nor at work; and 26,000 that could
neither read nor write.” About the same may be said of Man
chester—the lowest estimate given of children who ought to be at
school and are not, is from 10,000 to 20,000, the highest from
40,000 to 50,000. The Rev. H. W. Bellairs, another inspector,
writes thus : “ The present condition of education in Great Britain
may be thus stated:—one half of the children of the working
classes between three and thirteen years of age, are under no schoolastic education at all • and of the other half it cannot be truly
said that, under our present system, they will ever be half
educated.” One country place may be taken as illustrating the
�110
educational condition of the agricultural districts; the national
schoolmaster of Evesham writes :—“ I have been in charge of this
school for five years, and from my observation and experience
during that time, I am of opinion that there is a deplorable amount
of ignorance amongst the children of the labouring class in this
neighbourhood ; I have become very strongly impressed with the
conviction, that our present educational appliances are quite in
adequate to cope with the appalling ignorance, and moral destitu
tion so prevalent in this locality.” Such, then, is the condition of
England after a lengthened trial of the system now in operation.
Doubtless there are exceptions. The northern counties are in this
respect superior to the southern, while in many towns a larger pro
portion of children will be found attending school, than in Bir
mingham and Manchester, but in no place, whether in town or
country, is the educational condition of the people satisfactory, nor
is there any hope of improvement with the present system. It is
not progressive, has no tendency to propagate itself; it helps those
who help themselves which is well enough, but the children of
those who have neither the means nor the will, it leaves to mental
and moral starvation; the rich schools are supplied adundantly,
the poor are sent empty away. “ To him that hath shall be given ;
from him that hath not, shall be taken away ”—not that which he
hath, but that which he might have, if he had only the means where
with to obtain it. The system has failed in enlisting the support
and sympathy of any but those actually interested in its manage
ment. In country districts, the clergyman is almost the only person
outside the school who takes any interest in the work within ;
there is no active and equal co-operation. He may ask, and some
times obtain the help of his neighbours, but they soon leave him to
his duties and responsibilities—they say, it is a part of the parson’s
work,* and does not concern them. In towns there are committees
and more equality between clergymen and laymen ; and there is
oversight and vigour for a time, but in the absence of anything
stimulating and requiring thought and effort, a committee soon
becomes a soulless form, only roused to periodic action for the
purpose of securing as much money from the State as possible, at
the least cost of time and labour. There is no competition among
�Ill
schools, nothing to stimulate teachers and managers; and that
which ought to interest a whole neighbourhood—the education of
the children—fails to secure more sympathy and support, than a
few annual subscriptions paid grudgingly towards the school funds.
Then, they are avowedly religious schools, established on tho
assumption that the State is bound to see to the religious instruc
tion of the young; and so all religious creeds and opinions are,
by authority of the State, taught in the day schools. Roman
Catholic doctrine and history, Protestant doctrine and history,
each declaring the other erroneous; Jewish creeds, declaring both
wrong; and, if the Mormons are numerous enough to establish
schools of their own, (for the Mormon religion is permitted by law),
then the State would pay for teaching that the Mormon Bible is
the only revealed word, and all else obsolete and erroneous. What
is truth ? is replied to by “ Whatever you please. It is of no
consequence; only let something be taught which you call religion,
and that will be sufficient.” So the Government, while compelling,
declines to interfere with the religious teaching; it merely asks
whether the managers are satisfied, with the religious condition of
the school, and if an affirmative answer be given, the capitation
grant is allowed without further question. Thus, under the shelter
of a piece of ill-concealed hypocrisy, if the managers of a
purely secular school will enforce the reading of a single verse in
the Bible daily—no matter what it may be—and declare themselves
satisfied, State aid would be afforded; while, if they are honest
enough to declare it is not a religious school, and there is no
religious teaching, it will be withheld. A singular illustration of
this anomaly was recently brought before the President of the
Council, in order, if possible, to obtain a remedy. In connection
with a large number of Mechanics’ Institutions, which are for
purely secular teaching, there are day schools as well as night
classes taught by certified teachers. These being secular are
denied the capitation grant, but if the same evening class pupils
taught by the same masters are removed to a building—a National
School for instance—where the day school is an inspected religious
school, then the night pupils are included in the returns, and the
capitation fee is paid for them. The religious influence of another
�112
class of pupils, taught in the same building in the day
extending to them as evening pupils, is as curious an illustration
of religion by proxy, or imputed righteousness, as will be found
in Church or State, in this or any civilized or uncivilized country.
Surely it is time these absurdities were committed to the Paradise
of Fools, and we adopted a course manly and intelligent in our
dealing with this question. We exhort men to cease their religious
strife, to live in harmony, to form Christian unions and alliances,
and at the same time commence with the propagation of all these
differences with the children in the day school—tell them on the one
hand how very naughty it is for men to differ so much about religion,
and on the other that it is necessary all these differences should be
perpetuated at the expense of the State, and as a part of their
education. The remedy generally proposed for meeting our educa
tional difficulties is an extension of the Factory Half-time Act.
This Act provides that no children shall be employed in factories
under a certain age, without at the same time attending school a
certain number of hours per week. Regarded as a whole, and
compared with what it might have accomplished, it has been a con
spicuous failure. Doubtless, in cases where the employer takes a
personal interest in the education of his workpeople, the Act has
worked advantageously; but such cases are the exception, not the
rule, and there is not a large town in the Factory districts, where
hundreds of young persons who have attended school at half-times
may not be found unable to read or write, and in fact almost as
ignorant, as if they had never attended school at all. Mr. Redgrave,
Inspector of -Factories, in his Report just presented, declares that
“ the present half-time system cannot be allowed to remain as it is.
It is a state of things which the Legislature did not intend, and
which cannot continue unredressed
and he then offers some sug
gestions for its improvement. The provisions of the Factory Act
have been extended to other trades and occupations where young
children are employed, but there has not been time yet to
determine with what results. Mr. Redgrave writes that he has no
doubt, “ when the Act of 1867 has become more familiar to the
manufacturers, we shall find fewer objections to the employ
ment of half-time children. But,” he adds, “ it is well to
�113
consider what the Act of 1867 has done in this respect,
as a guide to us in connection with that great subject which
in effect it has left untouched—the education o£ the people."
Charges of indifference have been brought against employers, but
the reply is obvious—it is not their business to attend to the
education of their workpeople ; if tjiey find them employment it
may bo required that it shall be in healthy rooms, and employ
ment which shall not in itself be unhealthy, and that they pay
them adequate wages : they are responsible for employing children
without a certificate and suffer the consequences ; they ought not
to be made responsible for determining the value of the certificate
presented. The cardinal defect of the Half-time Act is that it assumes
the child learns at school, but does not require it to be proved. The
certificate is given simply for school attendance, not school attain
ments ; and so, with indifferent parents and children, and too often
not efficient teachers, the children pass out of the period of bondage
to that of freedom without reaping the advantages intended by the
Act. The mind is set upon the termination of the school period, not
on learning; earning wages is a luxury, attending school a sacrifice.
This defect suggests the remedy. If there are nearly one or two
millions of children who ought to be at school but are not—if all
attempts have failed in converting ignorant parents to the conviction
that it is their duty and interest to secure the education of their
children, somehow or other, then nothing short of compulsory school
attendance, or rather compulsory school attainments, will effect the
object; an Act simple in its main features, and modified in its details,
as might be found expedient, would be needed. Regarding attend
ance at school as secondary, it would make it a criminal offence,
punishable by fine or imprisonment, for a parent or guardian to
allow a child to grow up without instruction; and a like offence for
an employer to engage and pay wages to a child without the pro
duction of a certificate of attainments. In this way the strongest
possible inducement would be held out both to parent and child—
not simply to attend school, but to obtain the instruction by which
alone he could earn wages. Self interest would quicken the
apathetic ; no knowledge no wages, would soon fill the schools, and
a generation would not pass away before the laws of compulsory
H
�114
school attendance would be unnecessary. There would be no
great difficulty in fixing the standard of attainments, or securing a
proper examination ; these things are done at present by the
Oxford and Cambridge Universities, by the Society of Arts, the
Government in the Science Class examination, and other bodies.
It is assumed the examinations would be confined to what are
called secular subjects. A complete education is not contemplated;
but rather that elementary training of the faculties of hand, eye, and
mind, by which the educational process may be carried forward—
the culture and use of the implements rather than the work they
are destined to perform. Primarily, reading, writing, and arithmetic
—possibly geography, history, grammar, drawing, &c.—would form
the subjects upon which examinations would be held, the particular
standard being adjusted to meet the requirements of the case, as in
the examinations already referred to ; it would be determined by
competent and independent authority, and modified from time to
time as might be found necessary. It is satisfactory on this point
to be fortified by the opinion of Mr. Redgrave, Inspector of Factories,
already referred to, who recommends, in suggesting improvements
in the Factory and Employment of Children Acts, “ that no young
person under the age of 16 should be employed for full time unless
a certificate be produced, given in a prescribed form by a certified
schoolmaster, minister, inspector of schools, or justice of the peace,
certifying that the young person can read and write well, and work
sums in the four first rules of arithmetic.” It may be further
remarked, that no country has in modern times secured an educated
people in the absence of compulsory school attendance. In Prus
sia, Switzerland, partly in Holland—the best educated European
States—school attendance is compulsory. In Canada it is the
same, and in the United States it is now, or has been; in some
States the law has ceased to be operative, superseded by the stronger
law of public opinion ; in others, where school attendance is not
satisfactory, a renewal of the compulsory law is suggested as the
only remedy. The principal objections to compulsory school attend
ance are that it is un-English, an interference with the liberty of
the subject, and would not be submitted to by the people. With
a large number of people everything new is un-English. “ That
�115
which has been shall be” is with them a maxim incapable of refu
tation ; they look back on the past, not for lessons to guide, but for
precedents to follow. Through predilections and prejudices every
question is viewed, seldom directly and abstractedly, and hence
almost all accepted truths have had to fight their way through
contempt, obloquy, misrepresentation, and argument, to victoiy.
There is this encouragement—many things formerly regarded as
un-English are now established. All legislation on social questions,
Sanitary Acts, Health and Nuisances Removal Acts, are of this
description. A man cannot build his house as he pleases, so far
has law invaded the domain of social and private life; and yet the
people are not in rebellion-—nay, rather, the demand is for more,
not less of legislation in this direction. Doubtless, it would be
better if people could be induced to do without so much legal
enactment. Whatever people can do for themselves they ought to
do it better than the State, in its organized capacity, can do it for
them ; but, unfortunately, they do not attend to their own well-being,
even when the duty is obvious ; and although experience is valuable
as a teacher, her school fees are so heavy, that of late years there
has grown up a disposition to devolve many duties upon the State,
which were formerly regarded as beyond its legitimate province.
That compulsory school attendance interferes with the liberty of
the parent is unquestionable, but only so far as the parent violates
the primitive and inherent rights of the child. The child has the
same right to have the mind fed as the body, and if the neglect to
afford proper nourishment for the body exposes the parent to
punishment, there is no reason why the same or even greater
punishment should not be inflicted when he neglects to supply the
necessary food required by the mind. In one sense all law inter
feres with personal liberty, but only when the exercise of liberty
interferes with the rights of others. To punish the burglar is to
interfere with his liberty to plunder; to punish the parents for
withholding from their children the right to be instructed is to do
the same thing. The State takes upon itself the guardianship of
the rights of the weak and helpless, as against the strong, but the
law in each case is founded upon man’s moral nature, is not afbitary, and would be respected. Compulsory school attendance • need
�116
not necessarily interfere with, the liberty of instruction. The child
may be taught at home or at school; the only obligation is that he
shall. not grow up in ignorance. In bringing children into the
world, parents have contracted certain obligations towards them—
they are bound to bring them up and fit them for citizenship ; but
these children are helpless, and unable to secure the fulfilment of
the-obligation, and hence the State interferes as their guardian, to
obtain from the parent, if he is able—and by some other means if
he is not—the completion of the contract into which he had
entered. That there would be cases of hardship where children
are employed and earning wages is likely enough—all social
laws press heavily on some—but regard for the child’s permanent
welfare should over-ride all considerations of temporary advantage
to the parent; and surely it is a less evil to restrain a parent from
Eving upon the earnings of a child, than that the child should be
deprived of the instruction by which he can earn his own bread in
after life, and discharge properly the duties of a citizen. The evil
would not be serious—it would be a displacement of labour to some
extent. There is a certain quantity of juvenile work to be done in
the country, and if children of six to eight years are prevented
doing it, older children and more efficient will be employed for the
purpose. On this subject Monsieur Cousan says : £k A law which
compels parents and guardians under penalties to secure the in
struction of children, is based on the principle that the degree of
education necessary to the knowledge and practice of our duties is
of itself the first of all duties; and,” he adds, “ I do not know a
single country where this law is absent, where popular education
flourishes.” Would a law so inoperative be observed? It is said
such an. amount of hostility would be created as to render the law
inoperative. It may be so, but is it not more likely the influence
would be altogether in the other direction ? The Act would be the
corporate seal of the nation set to the declaration that the children
shall be educated ; it would have the support of the majority, of all
who are really favourable to the nation’s advancement. On parents
disposed to have their children instructed it would exert no
pressure, would not be felt oppressive; they are doing exactly
what the Legislature declares they ought to do. On the vicious only
�117
would it press heavily. In the middle class, and a large section of
the working men, the feeling in favour of education is strong and
general; and this feeling, supported hy public law, would create an
opinion and influence upon the class below tending to secure
respect and observance, and calculated to render criminal proceed
ings infrequent, and in time unnecessary. Again, it may be
questioned whether there is much force in the opinion so
frequently urged, that abolishing school fees, and supporting the
schools out of the taxation of the country, would tend to lower the
value of instruction in the estimation of the people. It can hardly
be conceived that parents, having a due regard for the welfare of
their children, will neglect to send them to school because they
have no occasion to send at the same time 4d. or 6d. per week as pay
ment for the instruction; and it is still less conceivable that those who
have no such regard for their offspring will make this an excuse for
their negligence, and urge that if the sacrifice involved in the per
formance of their duty were greater, they would be more disposed to
undertake it. Be it as it may, there is the fact that a large number
of the children of the working class are without instruction—a
sufficient number to suggest the question, “What will they do with
us ? ” if we cannot do something more with them, than has been
done. Parents do not send them to school, and will not', and no
other remedy is suggested but compulsion. But if compulsion
is applied to one it must be to all ; the law must be equal in its
dealings. Ignorance and criminality, as a matter of fact, are insepar
ably connected. One of the functions of Government is- the
repression of crime, and, in the interests of society and the welfare
of the helpless child, it surely may interfere to prevent the abuse of
parental authority. At present a parent may do whatever he pleases
with his child, short of actual bodily cruelty ; he may educate it or he
may not, and the law does not interfere. Substitute the imperative
for the conditional—you shall for you may—and there will be a
prospect that in a few years our educational condition will no longer
be a bye-word and reproach to all intelligent foreigners. In carrying
out this law of compulsory school attendance, it is clear schools must
be provided; it does not necessarily follow they should be free,
except to the children of parents who cannot afford to pay. Whether
�118
they should be free to all is fairly open to discussion, bnt all certi
fied schools, whether without school fees or with them, on the part
of those able to pay, should be open without restriction or limita
tion in so far as they are aided and inspected by public authorityThey should neither be denominational nor sectarian schools, nor, in
the ordinary sense in which the term is used, should they be religious
schools. It is not now regarded as the paramount duty of the State
to attend to the religious interests of the people. The world is
ultimately ruled by thought, and it cannot be questioned that the
thought of England and Europe is strongly in favour of leaving
religion to individual conscience, withdrawing it from the sphere
of law, and, in spite of popes and prelates, leaving every man to
settle for himself what form of religion he shall adopt, and what
mode of worship he shall observe. But it does not follow that all
existing schools cannot be utilized and used, and only if and when
found inadequate need new schools be erected : the simple provision
would be that during ordinary school hours the instruction should
be confined to the subjects in which examinations are conducted,
and dogmatic religious teaching be excluded. Instead of a con
science clause, which is but a clumsy contrivance for protecting the
Dissenter from outward violations of conscience, while it exposes
the child to social degradation, the religious instruction, as such,
should be limited to certain hours, open to all who choose to accept
it, but not forced -on any. There is one objection to the use of
existing schools pointed out by Mathew Arnold. It is this : “ That
the moment the working class of this country have this question of
instruction really brought home to them, their self-respect will make
them demand, like the working classes on the Continent, public
schools, and not schools which the clergyman, or the squire, or the
millowner calls 1 my school.’ ” There is another objection still more
formidable, viz., that the interest of the nation will never be fully
enlisted in the work of popular education so long as instruction is
confined to denominational schools. The continuance of these
schools is urged solely on religious grounds; they are supposed to
secure, by their connection with a place of worship, the religious
culture of the children, and this is regarded as all-important. It is
singular the unanimity there is among a certain class of speakers
�119
and writers in favour of combining religion with elementary instruc
tion in schools for the poor. They look with horror on what they
term the divorce of religion from the learning of the alphabet in the
national schools ; yet respecting the schools for their own children,
the middle and upper class schools, there is no anxiety. The last
thing people send their children to be taught in the grammar or
private schools is religion, and as a matter of fact it is not taught;
and yet when it is proposed to omit this teaching from schools for
working men, an outcry is raised, the scheme denounced as godless,
and the supporters of it no better than infidels. Lurking under this
loose talk is the idea that religion is a good thing for the poor man,
and it must be supplied to him whether he likes it or not; but for
other people—why, they can please themselves. Ask, however, the
working men themselves respecting the education of their own
children, and they would pronounce unhesitatingly in favour of
non-denominational and secular schools. In this respect also the
present system must be regarded as a failure : it is based on the
idea of making men Christians that they may be good citizens. If
it had succeeded, its continuance might be justified; but has it ?
Notoriously, a vast majority of the working classes are outside the
pale of direct religious influences, and yet these have been trained
to a large extent in our existing schools. Not a Congress of Bishops
and Clergy can be held—not a Conference of Dissenting ministers
of any denomination—where the question respecting the alienation
of the working classes from religion is not earnestly discussed, and
sundry plans devised for their recovery. The “ heathenism of our
large towns ” is always a favourite subject, and how to adapt church
services to suit their tastes, and so bring them into the religious
edifices, occupies a conspicuous place in all their deliberations. Let
anyone examine the Reports of the Inspectors of the National
Schools on Gospel History, or any subject embraced in religious
teaching, and, with some exceptions, it is about the saddest exhi
bition of ignorance to be found in connection with school teaching.
Committing to memory religious dogmas they cannot understand,
or which, if they do, they find daily the subject of controversy, is
not the way to make children religious, or to form the basis of a
true Christian character. In fact, religion cannot be taught, it must
�120
grow by all the holy influences with which a child can be sur
rounded ; but these influences may be entirely absent where there
is most of professedly religious teaching. Between “teaching
religion ” and “ religious teaching ” we have failed to recognize any
distinction, and this confounding of two things essentially different
is a mistake which pervades our entire system of education. An
improved national System must have for its object the making
of good citizens. The real learning of a man is of more public
importance than any particular religious opinions he may entertain,
and we must learn to separate the teaching of religious doctrine
from the ordinary instruction of primary schools, before we can
expect to train up good citizens or intelligent Christians. It may
be admitted that there can be no complete education if religion is
altogether excluded; but elementary and technical instruction can
be given alone, and religious instruction may be safely left to
private individuals or the public bodies which may choose to under
take it. Aworthy prelate at a recent Church Congress again hoisted
the American flag, to frighten us from the adoption of this godless
scheme of secular education. Whether rhe distinguished prelate is
acquainted with the American system or not does not appear, but
the results will challenge comparison with anything he can produce
in this country. The system is based upon the idea of citizenship.
The teaching of religion is prohibited; religious teaching is not.
The Bible is not degraded by being made a school book, and ex
plained by an incompetent teacher; but the school is opened by a
portion read without note or comment, the Lord’s Prayer is recited
or chanted, a hymn or piece of sacred music is sung; and, when
conducted by an intelligent and religious teacher, it is difficult to
imagine a service more beautiful or impressive than may be wit
nessed daily at the opening of an American primary school. And
what are the results ? The American youths are more intelligent
than the English. The American people are as loyal to their
Government, and, as a whole, as law-abiding as any under the old
monarchies of Europe, and, judged by any of the ordinary tests, they
are more religious than the people of this country Sunday is better
observed than here, a larger number of people attend church; the
religious, educational, and philanthropic institutions supported by
�121
voluntary contributions are equal in extent to those in this country.
A religious tone enters into and affects the whole of society, which
has no counterpart in this country, while in the more purely
American States, where the foreign element has less influence, there
is a higher general and religious culture than could be found either
in this country or in any of the old countries of Europe. And yet
reverend men at Church Congresses talk about this secular education
as leading to irreligion and infidelity. The leading features of a
measure may be briefly summarised. A Minister of Education, and
a Council, and Examining Board would be essential; provision for
training and certifying competent teachers ; in every district a com
mittee to superintend all school arrangements, and disburse the funds
levied for school purposes. The funds should be partly national,
partly local—national as contributed by the whole people, and
local in order to secure personal local interest, and a provident dis
bursement. The area of local taxation should be so wide as to
avoid severe and unequal pressure, and not so large as to destroy
individual supervision. In corporate towns, and towns with Local
Boards, these bodies would be intrusted with the work and manage
ment ; in country districts, the Poor Law Unions would afford
the basis of organization. In all cases the duty of superintending
school instruction should be regarded as the proper business of
the governing body, and not of the clergy. Their work is the
religious teaching; but only as citizens have they need to meddle
with general instruction. The scramble hitherto to induce children
to attend school, that they might be got to church and figure in
ecclesiastical statistics, has hindered rather than helped the progress
of education. If the responsibility of looking after the instruction
of children be taken from the clergy, and placed upon the rate
payers in each locality, self-interest and preservation would act as
powerful incentives to vigorous action against a too parsimonious
provision. A minimum salary could be fixed where a given mrmber of scholars are taught, so that a school would in no case be
starved by an economical committee. Another important feature
would be thorough inspection and frequent examinations, and the
results of the examinations circulated as soon as possible. At
present the reports of the Inspectors are almost useless. They are
�122
sent in by a department of the Government, printed among the
blue books, and ready for use if anybody cares to apply for them ;
but, supposing the reports of a district were printed and circulated
quickly, the peculiarities—excellences or deficiencies—of each
school pointed out, what an interest would be excited! Com
mittees and managers would read and consider them. Conferences
of teachers would be held, they would be discussed, a healthy
stimulus would be applied, and then would happen, what it is
utterly in vain to expect under the present system : the people,
regarding the work as their own, would do it with all the judgment
and energy of which they are capable, and which characterises
their proceedings in other matters of local and personal interest.
DISCUSSION.
Mr. E. Potter, M.P. : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen—
In the first place, let me express my strong feelings of admiration for
the address which we have just heard from Mr. Alderman Eumney,
than whom no man is more competent to give an opinion on the
working of the educational system in the district from which he
comes. I heard him a year or two ago, before a Parliamentary com
mittee, say that he considered the factory education little less than a
sham. I agree with him, and the causes are, to my mind, very patent.
In the first place, the factory system only embraced a single section
of the trade of the country. It was forced on the cotton trade, and
the country felt that it was unjust to compel one trade only to
submit to it. Among millowners there was a strong and a natural
feeling, and even the best masters, who had had educational estab
lishments of their own previous to the time, said, “ If it comes to a
question of force, the people may educate themselves.” They
would not be forced, as a single class, to do it, and their feeling
upon the matter was strong. Now, factory education has been
very good under certain circumstances, and bad under other circum
stances. Where a master has taken an interest in education, it has
been successful, but it has been a very difficult thing to carry out.
It is a difficult thing to exercise a moral compulsion. Those of us
who are large employers may be able to persuade many, but un
fortunately others would take a different course. They would pre
�123
fer sending their children to where they could work full time. The
inefficiency of the factory system is that it does not embrace the
whole country. The great benefit of the compulsory principle is
that it would reach all classes. Now, it must be carried out mainly
by the extension of the factory and half-time system. That is the
great object of the bill I advocate. It would compel the education
of every child, labouring or not. I see no difficulty in doing this ;
the organisation would be very easy—-no more difficult for a district
than it is now for a single factory. There are large factories,
employing five or six thousand hands, and I do not see that it
would be more difficult to educate the children in a small
town, say, of 8,000 inhabitants, than it is to educate the
children in a large mill. There is one point I am anxious about
in connection with the League, and that is, that this education
should be kept perfectly distinct from the present denominational
system. If it is given on something like the factory system, I
believe it will not interfere with, but tend to support, the present
system. I say this advisedly. There is a large class of workmen
who, when forced to educate their children, will, as a matter of
pride, send them to the denominational rather than to the free
schools, and pay for them rather than accept State aid. In a few
years it would have that effect. At all events, the two systems
must be kept perfectly distinct. There is nothing worse in a
denominational school than the education of half-timers. School
masters do not like to have them, because they interfere with the
working of the school. I had some knowledge of a school ten
years before the Factory Act came into existence. It was pretty
successful, and well supported, and the proprietor had some
influence over a certain number of hands. I believe it was a
higher class school then than it was when transformed into a
school of half-time. The master could not give attendance to the
half-timers, and the school rather fell off, and the ultimate con
clusion of the proprietor was, to make it altogether into a half
time school. The privilege was extended to the master of taking
any number of children from the neighbouring district to educate,
and of having the fees himself j but he has never succeeded in
this respect, and he said to me in conversation, that there was a
�124
feeling among the better class workmen against sending their
children into the half-time school. I think that feeling exists, hut
if the free and compulsory system is worked on the half-time
principle only, the Factory Act will be carried out very efficiently.
I am an advocate for the half-time system, but it must be kept
distinct from the other. We have been working half a century
under the Factory Act, and it has been compulsory, as far as it
went, and secular. There has been no compulsion to teach religion
the employer not teaching his own creed-"—or to have the school
purely secular. I think many of the best schools have been
purely secular. I think, then, that the new schools which will be
established, if I may say so, below the line, should be classed as
distinct working-class schools entirely. I am very anxious that
every encouragement should be given to keeping them separate.
I should not like any injury to be inflicted on the higher class
denominational schools. My great interest in joining this society
is to keep the schools distinct. I think we shall do a fatal damage
if we injure the denominational schools at all, because there is
il ample room and verge enough” for us below them. I am per
fectly satisfied we can supply education in the schools below them
to another million children. Why should they not be perfectly
distinct ? The one class of schools will be compulsory, and that
very compulsion should make them free and secular. We might
as well meet the thing at once, openly and honestly. In
denominational schools you can enforce denominational teaching;
but with us, under a compulsory system, it must be secular. I
wish the two questions to be worked harmoniously, side by side,
but to be separate from each other.
The Rev. C. Clarke : I am to speak a few words on the subject
of compulsion, and on the supposition that in the course of a few
years we shall have our bill passed through the Houses of Parlia
ment, and that local authorities will have the power to found and
establish free secular schools, is it likely in such case that the
poor, the ignorant, the thoughtless, those of our fellow countrymen
who are unacquainted with the blessings and advantages of educa
tion, will be able to oppose the national will and the intentions of
the Legislature by refusing to send their children to school ? Are
�125
they likely to succeed in any attempt of that sort ? Now, with
regard to the schools which we desire to establish, I wish to notice
a remark which proceeded yesterday from the lips of Professor
Fawcett. I understood him to say—and in fact he is reported this
morning in the papers as having said—that it was the intention, or
it would be the work, of the League, to establish such schools as
the British schools.
Professor Fawcett : Should I be in order if I rise to explain ?
There is some misunderstanding. I made the remark in conse
quence of a letter last week in the Spectator, signed “ Jesse
Collings.” I stated distinctly yesterday that it was my duty simply
to explain the programme of the League—I did not express my own
individual opinion. What Mr. Collings stated, writing in the name
of the League, was this : that it was not the intention, or desire’ or
object of the League that free British schools should be established.
What he did state distinctly was this : that it was their intention
to give the local managers of these rate-supported schools the
authority, if they desired it, to establish schools analogous to the
British schools. If he misinterpreted the intentions of the League,
it is his fault, and not mine.
Mr. Jesse Collings : I think this renders a further explana
tion necessary. It will be seen from my letter to the Spectator
that it is not the intention of this League to found schools like the
British schools. My letter was written in answer to a rather
unfair article in the Spectator, and to numerous inquiries whether
the Bible should be read or not. The answer is : The League has
nothing to say about the Bible ; the reading of the Bible, like any
other book, or any other question affecting the discipline or instruction
of the school, will be left in the hands of the local authorities. There
fore in our bill, to be founded on this principle, we shall have nothing
at all to say about the Bible. The words about British schools
were brought in incidentally, and they were these—“In this respect
(in being unsectarian) the League goes no further than the British
and Foreign School Society.” I was not speaking of the practice Of
that society ; but their theory, which is that there shall be no theo
logical instruction given in the schools. That is what we mean—that
there shall be no religious creed or catechism of any kind taught in
�126
the schools we are about to found. If the British and Foreign
Society do allow these things to be taught, then I was in error.
We do not intend that they shall be taught in our schools.
The Rev. C. Clarke : Some of us in Birmingham have to do
with schools in which daily the Scriptures are read, but in which
no express theological or religious instruction of any kind is given.
Now, originally, the British schools had this foundation, and no
other, but I thought it was notorious that during the last twenty
years the authorities of those schools, the head-quarters of which
are in the Borough Road, have (in the judgment of many persons)
utterly perverted their trust. They have taught a sectarianism, and
when called to account, or when an explanation was demanded,
they still persisted in doing it; and persons who had for many
years supported their institutions on the ground of their supposed
unsectarian character, were obliged to leave the British schools
altogether. Now I wish to say that some of us, in promoting the
objects of the League, wish to take every precaution against an
abuse such as that. The Scriptures will not be read, except in
such schools as are governed by authorities who desire that
they shall be read, and insist on their being read. We would
like to see this matter carefully considered. For having to
do with schools, knowing how they are conducted, and what
goes on in them ; and having after long use some reasonable
and proper regard for the Scriptures, we are a little dubious, and
inclined to hesitate on the question whether a true regard for them
can be shown by the unthinking, an4 unreasonable, and improper
use made of them sometimes in schools. But however this may
be, it would be improper and unbecoming for us of the League to
say that the Bible shall not be used. Let the Bible be used if the
authorities in any district insist on its being used, but let us have,
at any rate, in our constitution the clearest and most positive
statement to the effect that no theological teaching, no note or com
ment of any sort whatever, shall be allowed in the national schools
of our country. Now, on the supposition that the local authorities
have the power to establish schools of this kind—secular free
schools—ought the people, by reason of their ignorance, and
the manner in which hitherto they have been neglected, to
�127
be allowed to oppose their inclinations to the decision of
the Legislature and the just wishes of the nation? We know,
all of us, that we have to submit to regulations and laws in con
nection with the maintenance of the poor, the punishment and
confinement of criminals, and the public health; and all of us
who think at all on the matter know that if the nation chooses to
express its will through the public laws in connection with the
matter of our sending our children to school, we shall have to
submit in that respect as well as in the others. With regard to
modes of compulsion, none of us think of compulsion as an end.
We are sometimes spoken of as though we were endeavouring to
introduce some principle of compulsion as an end. It is not an
end—it is a means; and those who observe the laws in this case,
who do what they ought to do in connection with their children,
will be under no form of compulsion whatever other than their
own sense of duty. As to the manner in which the principle of
compulsion may be applied, it would, of course, be possible to
introduce here in England what I understand to be the law in
Prussia, in which there is a complete system of registration, so
that the members of every family are registered, and in a sense
known • and the children of every family have in a certain manner
to be accounted for if not in their places at school. We might
have a system of registration of that sort. But without proceeding
so far as that, we might have a system by which no children
should be employed whatever when they ought to be at school.
This would be a kind of compulsion which possibly might be
exceedingly offensive. But in addition to having a labour clause
utterly excluding children in those years when they ought to be at
school from factories and workshops, we might have a vagrant or
truant clause similar to that which is enforced in Massachusetts.
Mr. Field, who is well acquainted with the American system, and
who, in his visits to Massachusetts, has taken pains thoroughly
to inform himself, has told me that the people have clauses
in operation of this nature. If children, for instance, are seen
in the streets of Boston during the school hours, they are at
once captured by the officers, inquiries are made of their parents
as to why they are in the streets, and not at school, and their parents
�128
are seriously warned and admonished that they will incur penalties
if this is continued. Of course, if the children go to school all is
well; if they do not go to school, the parents, as sometimes happens,
are fined in any sum not exceeding 20 dollars ; or the children, if
they show themselves to be incorrigible, are taken before a magis
trate, and by him committed to a truant institution. These penalties
are enforced in Massachusetts, and inflicted from year to year. If
we were wise enough to have a clause excluding children from
factories and workshops, and another keeping them from the streets,
these forms of compulsion might be sufficient; but if they did not
prove sufficient, it would be open to the Government to introduce
clauses of a more stringent nature. I talk to my friends and
acquaintances on the subject, and find a few of them shrinking in
regard to compulsion, but I tell them, as I will tell you, that most
happily we have now the power by which knots of various intricate
kinds and characters may be either untied or cut. We have this
in the political power which the people possess, and if only we will
take our stand on grounds that are logical and right, and appeal to
the country at large, but especially to those artisans who are really
intelligent and upright, and anxious for their own welfare and the
country’s good, we shall get the help whereby these intricate knots,
so puzzling and painful to timid and cautious people, may be alto
gether untied or cut, the difficulties will not trouble or embarrass
us at all. Let us, I say, take our stand on grounds that are legiti
mate and right, and appeal to the common sense and conscience of
the nation, and then we shall find we have just the force we need
to carry out educational measures, and everything else relating to
the well-being, honour, and happiness of our country.
Mr. Mundella, M.P. : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen—
After the remarks of the last speaker, and, indeed, of some of the
preceding speakers, I think I cannot do better than submit to this
audience something of my experience of what compulsory education
has done abroad, what is the machinery by which it has effected those
results, and the necessity for it at home; and I trust the audience
will forgive me for saying that the few remarks I submit to you
will not be the remarks of a mere theorist or doctrinaire. I am
the son of a working man. I left school at nine and a half years
�129
of age, and my first master, to whom I served my apprenticeship,
is now in the body of the hall. I have been an employer of
4,000 workpeople, and have been an employer abroad, where com
pulsory education is carried out. I have addressed large audiences
of from 10,000 to 20,000 workpeople at once, in this country, on
compulsory education, and I never met with but one response—a
hearty assent to it. I just state these facts, not in order to give
you anything of my personal affairs, but that my remarks may not
be regarded as those of a theorist or doctrinaire, who wishes to
force his crotchets on the people. My attention was first drawn
to the necessity for compulsory education by observing its work
abroad. I first saw it in Switzerland, then in Saxony, and then in
Prussia. Ten years ago I saw it first in Switzerland, but my visits
to Saxony, as an employer of 600 or 700 workmen, have been
annual for some years, and the results of education there are so
remarkable, so incredible, that I should be afraid to describe them
to you. Nobody could realise or believe it. We are not only
incomparably inferior in the quantity of our education, but also
inferior in the quality ; indeed, we are more inferior in the quality
than in the quantity. We cannot realise in England what can be
attained by children under a compulsory system of primary educa
tion. Now, I have visited the schools in Saxony again, and again,
and again; and I have seen the children of peasants and
of framework-knitters, children of the humblest classes, of spinners,
and of weavers, and of ironworkers, at twelve years of age, convert
moneys from English into German, from thalers and groschen into
dollars and cents, then into francs and centimes, and transpose them
back again into German. I have gone the length and breadth of
the land, and have examined children by the wayside, children in
factories and cottages, and have never found one at twelve years of
age who could not read and write well—not as we understand
reading and writing, but such reading and such writing as I or any
other in this room have attained. They read and write intelli
gently. I have tried to find some comer or some spot in Saxony,
or the Canton of Zurich, or some Swiss Canton, where there are
uneducated children. I have always failed, and school directors
have said to me, “ It is in vain you search for them; there is no
I
�130
child in Saxony who cannot read and write.” My manager, who
has now been nine years in that country, and has had a daily
correspondence with numbers of workpeople scattered in the
mountains, with handlooms in their own cottages, has never yet
found a workman who could not correspond with him perfectly
and intelligibly about his own work. You need not wonder that
the North German Confederation is making such marvellous pro
gress. Well, I shall next say something of the machinery by
which it has been accomplished, because English people have
an idea, and interested parties are disseminating that idea,
that com pulsion means espionage and the policeman. A greater
fiction never entered into the mind of man. There is no
espionage, no policeman, in the case. I confess to you I under
took this part of the subject in fear and trembling. After being
shown a school of 3,000 boys, fifty in a class—the school, by the
way, being The handsomest building in the place—I said to the
head director in his counting-house, with his clerks around him,
“ Now, sir, tell me how often you have to call in the aid of the
policeman;” and he stood aghast. “I have been years head
director of this school,” he said; “ I never yet had to call in the
policeman.” He said, “ You do not understand the machinery by
which our schools are worked.” I have since mastered it; and I
tell you I do not believe in any truant law or vagrant law, or
Factory Act, or Workshops Act. They are all nonsense, and
will not answer the purpose. The machinery is simply this :
Every child in every cottage, hamlet, or town in Ger
many, Prussia, Saxony, Mecklenburg, Wirtemburg, or Switzer
land, is registered. You can keep a register of voters for household
suffrage; why not keep a register of children ? They have a house
hold register, and there are schools everywhere. They are not free
schools either; although the population is poor, they pay. The
children at six years of age must go to school. There are infant
schools, and they may go there before that age; but the compulsion
commences at 6 years, and does not end till 14. Well, the names
are inscribed in the register, and at the end of the sixth year the
parent receives a notice from the local board—the school board.
You could have a central board, and your political divisions would
�131
be your school divisions. It is so in Switzerland and in Prussia.
The wards of the town have their own local boards, represented at
the central board, and the local board would give notice to the
parent, “ Your child is six years of age, and must now come to
school.” The child comes to school or he does not; but suppose he
does not, there is no magistrate, no policeman, in the case. The
criminal law is never called into operation at all; the board has all
power, and they send for the parent. The head director said to me,
“ When it occurs that the parent does not send his children to
school, or neglects to send them regularly, after a certain number of
omissions I send for him and read the Act to him, or tell him to
read it himself, and say to him, ‘ If you are in duty bound, accord
ing to law, to send your child to school, why have you not done
so
This generally answers the purpose. But suppose the man
is contumacious, his case is laid before the school board, and he is
fined a franc. That is the first proceeding. Well, the matter
rarely, if ever, goes beyond it, for in a district of 50 odd thousand
persons, the school director told me he had only 42 cases of con
tumacy in 8 years ; and he is a strict man. But it is said by our
opponents, “ Oh, compulsion is not necessary there ; public opinion
does the work, and it will do just as well without compulsion.”
Now, I have put this question again and again. I am in corre
spondence with some of the principal school authorities in Saxony,
Prussia, and Switzerland, and I have asked them, “ Have you any
difficulty?” The answer has been, “We had a good deal of
difficulty at first, but after the first year or two it was wonderful
how smoothly things went.” “ Then,” I said, “ dare you now
relax the law ? ” In every instance I have had but one answer,
“We dare not relax the law.” And the reason is obvious. In all
communities there are some persons who shrink into habits of vice
and intemperance, and these persons would drag their chileren
down with them, and they would increase and multiply the vice
and ignorance of the country; but that the law prevents them. And
in answer to our opponents, who say that where there is a healthy
public opinion there is no need of law, let me make some allusions
to America. The Americans have been spoken of very honourably
by the last speaker, and I wish to speak of them with great admir
�132
ation; but there is one defect in the American system, and the
Americans are becoming conscious of it. They know they want
the compulsory power. The result is that public opinion, which
was a power when America was more sparsely populated, is now
ceasing to act. America is fast sinking into ignorance; and in
order that I may not misrepresent that great country, which has
made more munificent provision for education than any other, I
will give these facts. The superintendent of the Cincinnati schools
states that this is the percentage of daily attendance : In Cincinnati,
70-1 ; in Chicago, 58’9 ; in New York, 42’6. Is that the state of
things you wish to copy ? Listen to what he says about Prussia—
“ I refer to the Prussian system of education to call attention to
that feature of it which makes education compulsory, and I do this
because I believe that if we shall ever hope to derive the best
possible fruits from our own munificent system of education, this
feature must be incorporated into it.” This is American opinion.
America has recently appointed a Bureau of Education, and that
bureau is finding that with all this munificent provision, there are
thousands and tens of thousands who are not availing themselves
of it, and America is fast waking up to the consciousness —her best
men are already aware of it—that they must introduce compulsion
if they would wish to succeed. Now, our Workshops and our
Factory Acts are failures. Never was anything a more complete
failure than the Workshops Act. To neglect a child till he is 8, 9,
or 10 years of age, and then, when he first commences to work, to
insist on his going to school, is about the most objectionable and
unreasonable form of compulsion, I think, that it was possible for
the human mind.to devise. And, you know, in workshops and
factories we have espionage and the policeman, for nothing is done
unless either a policeman or a detective officer goes in. The Factory
Inspector is not a policeman, it is true, but he summons men before
the^criminal courts. Surely we can devise some means by which,
when children are neither at work nor at school, they shall be got
at. Low I ‘will notice the objection, that if we have compulsory
education labour will suffer. What a farce it is to say that parents
cannot afford to send their children to school because they will
sacrifice their children’s earnings. Children can begin to learn at a
�133
very early age, and where the education is persistent, as in Saxony,
what they learn is something marvellous. Now, I have the new
Labour Act of North Germany, which I received yesterday morning.
It applies to the whole labouring population of Germany, and it
prescribes that no child shall begin to work until the age of 12, and
he has been 6 years at school. That is the first clause. Every
child from 12 to 14 shall not work more than 6 hours daily, and
shall, attend school three hours daily. Every child from 14
to. 16 shall attend school 6 hours per week. Now mark this—
here technical education comes in, scientific instruction, know
ledge of languages; and then consider the moral, and not
only the moral, but the material prosperity of the country that
must follow. I say this: unless we wake up to this question
there are other interests at stake than moral interests ; there is the
interest of the stomachs of the people, their employment, which
will suffer as well as their moral necessities. Now, I do hope
nobody will believe I advocate this because I desire there should
be less religious instruction. What I have had I am most grate
ful for, and my reason for advocating education is that there
may be more. That word “ secular” is scandalously abused. All
truth is holy. The order, and system, and cleanliness of a school
are the most religious influences, I think, that can be brought to
bear. Go through the population of Prussia, and never, even in
its poorest districts, will you meet with the wretchedness, squalor,
and filth that stare us in the face in our large towns, and make
us so ashamed and humiliated. Now, following just after the new
law of the North German Confederation, I have received the new
Austrian school law. Austria has discovered that knowledge is
power, and that ignorance is weakness, and that to be weak is to
be miserable. What is the result ? Baron von Beust, the
Minister of Saxony, is now the Minister of Austria, and he has
taken the Saxon school system into Austria, and the Austrian
school system is now the most liberal in Europe. I ask you,
Englishmen and Englishwomen, are Austrian children to be
educated before English children ? My inquiries abroad have
stimulated me to plumb the depth of ignorance at home, and
I find it impossible to do it. I have, with the assistance of your
�134
Chairman, and at other times, in different parts of the country,
examined more than 12,000 young persons at work, who had
nearly all of them been at school; and what a farce our education
is 1 I mean religious education. How many have been at school,
and where much religious education is given, and yet some of them
do not know even that God is their Creator? It seems incredible,
but it is so. When they say a prayer, it is the merest confusion
imaginable. Ask them to say the Lord’s Prayer to you word for
word, and the first sentence is, “ Our Father, ’ch art in heaven.”
Again and again, hundreds of times, I have heard them say it.
What is the meaning? They have only a vague idea what is
meant. This comes from our system of teaching. I say to our friends
here that I am not a convert to the League. I was a convert to
national compulsory education for years, when many of my friends
thought I was an enthusiast and was going mad. Some of our con
verts, with all the zeal of neophytes, go further than myself; but I
say, with reference to this system, that I believe it can be applied to
agricultural as well as to manufacturing districts. There is in this
room a friend in the body of the hall who has for twenty years past
had his ploughboys in a good state of education ; he has done it with
out any sacrifice, and his people are the best tenantry in England,
and his farm is the best cultivated. He has his ploughboys so
well educated that a member of Parliament said, on examining one
of them, “ That fellow a ploughman ! he is a gentleman.” I thank
the meeting very cordially for having heard me patiently, and I
would say to those friends who stand aloof from us, “ Stand aloof
no longer. We have had some difficulty to arrive where we are,
but public opinion is growing so fast that the terms we offered
yesterday we cannot make to-day, and the terms we would gladly
make to-day cannot be offered to-morrow. We wish to deal with
you tenderly and gratefully for what you have done in the past;
but I would say, the sibyl is at the door with her last offer.”
Lord Campbell and Stratheden said : It seems to me that one
of the wants required to be supplied is some argument against the
compulsory principle. Such an argument it is utterly beyond my
capacity to furnish. Arguments in favour of the principle may
rather overstock the market to-day. • It would be useless to touch
�135
upon its necessity; for the whole audience seem to be agreed that
until the principle is introduced we cannot bring into schools the
whole of the masses we mean to have there. It is useless to touch
upon its justice, for the whole audience seem to feel that neglected
children really have no parents, that they become the wards of
the State, thrown upon the fatherhood of the law and the protection
of society. It would be superfluous, though easy, to dwell upon
the facilities for giving practical effect to this principle. There are
only two points that I, therefore, will venture upon, both of which,
if I am not deceived, have something practical about them. Of
course, on this question, as on many others, there is a great differ
ence of opinion. All are not equally advanced in their conviction
as to the necessity of the compulsory principle, and there is some
prejudice yet to be encountered. That prejudice, where it exists,
bases itself upon the idea that the State, or the central power,
ought not to be armed with domiciliary or autocratic functions such
as are proposed. I wish, therefore, to suggest to this audience a
distinction between a grant of such powers to the State, and the
accordance of them to local bodies, such as Town Councils or muni
cipal authorities, which are the immediate emanation of the very
individuals to be supervised. Don’t let it be imagined that I am
hostile to a grant of such powers to the State. All I suggest is,
that in conferring such powers upon municipal authorities, you meet
and indulge the prejudices of those who would view with jealousy
such powers if the central body happened to receive them. The other
observation I have to make is this—that it seems to me that the whole
question may be brought into a very narrow focus, and reduced to one
of downright justice to the taxpayer and ratepayer. It is obvious to
all men that to extend popular instruction in any shape or form there
must be a new expenditure. That expenditure must come from
general taxation imposed by Parliament, or it must come from the
local rates agreed to by municipal assemblies. In the one case, the
burden would fall upon the taxpayer ; in the other, upon the rate
payer. Both taxpayer and ratepayer are entitled to resist the
burden you are going to throw upon them, unless those burdens
involve some security for the attainment of the object aimed at.
The taxpayer might fairly say, “Now you are going to spend, say a
�136
million and a half, derived from general taxation. I will submit
to the payment of my share if your system involves some
guarantee that the schools shall be filled with children j but I will
not submit to the imposition of another Is. 6d. in the pound when
I know that there is a possibility of these schools being empty.”
Although we know from experience that our schools may be filled
without compulsion, yet until the principle is introduced you have
no guarantee for the attendance of even one child in all the school'
accommodation provided. So, too, might the ratepayer declare,
“ I am willing to submit to 2d., 3d., 4d., or even Is. in the pound
additional rates for a great public object which I am able to appre
ciate—for the conquest of ignorance, the repression of crime, and
the prevention of misery in many shapes ; but I will not submit
to any further rate for the erection of schools, or the employment
of schoolmasters when I have no security that another 100 will
come within the reach of these advantages.” I do trust that this
latter view may sink deeply into the minds of the taxpayer and the
ratepayer, without whose concurrence the great objects of your
association are impossible of attainment; and that so sinking into
their minds, it will create a general and irresistible concurrence of
opinion that, however the question of religion may be decided—
that whatever form of education is promoted—some powers for
ensuring the attendance of children at school shall exist.
Mr. George Howell, of London: I am decidedly in favour
of compulsory, free, secular education. This word “ secular ”
appears to me as though it were used to imply teaching the
peculiar dogmas of a small party in the country called
“ secularists.” Now, if it were so intended, this would at once be
sectarian teaching. We use the word “ secular ” as simply opposed
to ecclesiastical. The office of the clergyman or minister is eccle
siastical, but that of the schoolmaster is secular. By secular,
then, we mean that education which teaches those things which fit
children for the duties of this life as men and citizens. We want
our children educated in the practical knowledge and business of
life. Denominational, or religious, teaching must be left to the
home, the Sunday school, and the church. If we once admit the
teaching of theology into our public schools, where can it end but
�137
in compulsion ? Catholics, Protestants, and Secularistswill each
have their claim. Even the use of the Bible, as a text book in
our National Schools, will involve some difficulty, inasmuch as in
Ireland, and in all Catholic districts, the Catholics would claim
something different from our Protestant Bible. Besides which, I am
afraid that it would revive all the religious animosities which we
sought to remove by the dis-establishment of the State Church in
Ireland. With regard to compulsory education, the very term law
involves compulsion. We have compulsory laws to punish crime,
let us now try compulsion to prevent it. We demand compulsory
education for the benefit of the entire community, just as we demand
quarantine for the safety of our ports; and the removal of nuisances
for the protection of the health of our cities and towns; nay, even the
regulation of our traffic for the convenience of our streets. Ignor
ance is at once the most noxious of all nuisances, and the most
contaminating. It is also enormously expensive. The objections
to compulsion do not come from working men, although some wellmeaning men speak in their name as though we did object. Mr.
Walter, M.P., at a recent agricultural meeting at Maidenhead, spoke
somewhat against the platform of the League. During the last few
weeks I have been in personal communication with several of the
reformers of Worcester Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud, and Tewkes
bury, and in those towns I found no hesitation whatever in endors
ing the principle of compulsory, free, and secular education. And
here I may say that I am informed that so near home as the Scilly
Islands an almost complete system of compulsory education is in
operation. At the last general election I was a candidate for Ayles
bury, and one of the most prominent points in my address was
this one of national, compulsory, free, and secular education. I
visited every hamlet and village in the large borough, and not one
voice did I hear raised up against the principle. The only oppo
sition I found came from the clergymen and farmers. The farmers
were under the impression that education would unfit men for
work in the field; but both manufacturers and artisans know full
well that education is an immense benefit to both parties in the
daily work of life. In short, the working classes of this country
are anxious for, and demand, a complete national system of educa-
�138
,
tion, which shall reach all classes, and which shalj. be be compul
sory, unsectarian, and free.
Dr. Hodgson said the text of the few remarks he had to make
would be drawn from the admirable speech of Mr. Mundella. Mr.
Mundella said, most truly, that we were behind other countries, not
. so much in the quantity as in the quality of our education, and the
question of compulsion was very much mixed up with the quality
of education we intended to supply. The question they had to
discuss was compulsory attendance in schools, not the compulsory
provision of schools, for the schools must be provided before they
could be attended. He asked why it was that this necessity ex
isted ? There were many reasons ; but one special reason was the
indolence of parents who did not take any interest in the educa
tion of their children, and another reason was the indolence of the
• children themselves. He should regret exceedingly if it were to go
abroad as a general impression that the object of the League was to
establish a compulsory education which should be simply, or even
mainly, for the teaching of reading and writing, with even arith
metic superadded. They were not likely to disagree as to the
importance of reading and writing as instruments of education, but
one thing was certain—if we did not aim at something a great deal
beyond these things, we should neither obtain nor deserve that
support which would be requisite to carry the measure through the
House of Commons. The staple of our existing schools was reading
and writing, and what was the result? Everyone’s experience
answered this question, but he would mention one or two cases.
He had elsewhere published an account of a visit paid to a school
in the South of England, where the children read very passably
indeed. The passage read was a description of a crab. The
district was an inland one, and he asked the children if any of
them had ever seen a crab? There was a great sensation, and
after a little delay one girl said she had, but it appeared it was
not a marine crab, but a crab apple. That was the amount of
intelligence that had been developed. That child, and all the
others, would have passed muster in reading and writing. Another
story was told him by a benevolent lady, residing in the neighbour
hood of a country school, who took an opportunity of giving the
�139
children a lesson on their senses. It was a revelation to them that
they had senses. The lady asked, 11 What is the use of your nose?”
There was great silence for a time, broken by a boy who said, “ To
be wiped.” Another story was told him by Mr. Leonard Horner,
Factory Inspector, and it related to Birmingham. When the pre
sent Bishop of Manchester was head master of King Edward’s
School, Mr. Horner accompanied him on a tour for the purpose of
ascertaining the efficiency of instruction in the district, and espe
cially in the matter of religion. In one case the Scripture passage
read contained the word “ sacrifice,” and none of the children could
give the slightest explanation of the word except one girl, who had
been about four years in the school, and her answer was, “The
place where Jesus Christ offered up his son Isaac.” Now, this was
a state of things that must be put an end to. The instruction must
be made of such a nature as to develop the intelligence and to cul
tivate the understanding. There must be that kind of useful
knowledge imparted which would be suited to the comprehension
of the youngest child, and which was indispensable to children
when they grew up for their guidance in their after lives. He
wished to impress upon the audience that compulsion was not
tyranny, but the result of a law which we ourselves had imposed
for the general good. The way to make compulsion not only tole
rable, but successful, was so to dispose people that they should do
of their own accord those things which, if they did not do, the law
would compel them. In the schools for the poor the time allotted
for instruction was lamentably short, and therefore attention must
be concentrated upon those things which were most useful, most
indispensable, and most capable of application in after life.
Mr. Paget, formerly M.P. for Nottingham: I have now for, I'
think, sixteen years, as an agricultural employer, insisted that the
boys should spend some of their days at school, and some at work.
I felt that some such movement as this was evidently in the future,
and that it was better to be prepared with a knowledge of facts for
a time like this. And within my experience the results have been
so uniformly good that I have no hesitation whatever in saying that
the practice I have mentioned is a proved success. I have thirtyfour children upon the farm, employed on the condition that they
�140
spend the alternate days at school. It has been without any sacri
fice on my part. I felt that it must be a business success to justify
me in calling on my neighbours to adopt it, and it has been a
business success; for not only have I not lost anything, but I am
convinced that I have been better served, and my bailiff is of the
same opinion. I receive the boys at nine years of age, on condi
tion that they are able to write decently ; and I am quite certain
that no system of mixed school and labour will succeed, without that
preliminary condition. Coming on my farm at that age, and being
able to write decently then, they go to school and work on the
farm alternate days. I attend at the examinations in school, and
I have full proof that my boys fully maintain their ground against
those who are, or pretend to be, constantly at school. I have at
the age of 13 all the children who choose it, in the village, ex
amimed, and to those who can write correctly from dictation, read
intelligently, and work the first four rules of arithmetic, simple and
compound, I give a prize. There have been only two instances out
of 34 in which my boys have not had the prize. A very independ
ent witness—Mr. Sternhold, the Commissioner to examine into the
state of the children employed in agriculture—took very great
pains in the matter. He wrote to the employers of these children,
who are now some of them 25 years of age, and more than that; and
he received a uniform reply from the masters that they were
satisfied with their servants, and almost every one of the young
men wrote him letters, of which he spoke in high terms, and
which showed that they had not discontinued their education.
This, I conceive, is one of the very great advantages of the
system I have adopted; school-work becomes a relaxation and
a pleasure instead of being drudgery, because the boy compares
his day at school, not with a holiday or a day of bird’s nesting,
but with a day on the farm.
All his associations with books
are therefore pleasant, and in every instance I believe my lads con
tinue their education after they leave school. I asked one what he
was doing, and he said he was working logarithms; and another is
under-secretary to the Reform Club in London. They are qualified
for superior situations. There is no difficulty whatever in obtain
ing situations as farm servants for them after they leave me, because
�141
they are better than the ordinary run of boys. My bailiff says
when he was at their age he went to school till he was thirteen, and
then he had to go to the farm, and suffered extremely during the
first few months, because the labour was new to him. But my boys
are never tired ; they work one day on the farm, and rest the next
at school. They walk straight not slovenly, in the way those do who
are tired to death. Their minds and bodies are both improved.
The great subject, Lfancy, this morning, is how far education should
be compulsory. I have always held, and stated it publicly many
times, when I had the honour of representing Nottingham, that in
my opinion, society, being bound to provide for the poor and
criminal, have a right to see that the poor are brought up in such
a way that there shall be the least possible probability of their
becoming paupers or criminals. Therefore I have never had any
hesitation in saying I was in favour of compulsory education, and
I fully endorse what has been said by several gentlemen, that it
will not be ill received by the labouring classes. The schoolmaster
in my village tells me that men who are not educated themselves,
and who never cared about education before, send their children to
him to fit them to come upon my farm, because they find that is
the road to it. With respect to the religious question, I think it
will be an advantage to set the Sunday school free for religious
teaching. I think religion will not in any way suffer, but will
gain greatly by the education of the people being properly attended
to.
Professor Pawcett, M.P. : After the general remarks that have
been made this morning, and especially after the admirable speech
of my friend Mr. Mundella, it would be superfluous for me to say a
word in favour of the principle of compulsion. It may, however,
be assumed that every one who has joined this League has clearly
and distinctly made up his mind to this fact—that no settlement of
the educational question ought ever to be listened to, much less
earned as a permanent settlement, unless it involve the principle
of compelling the attendance of children at the school. I shall
endeavour to make the few remarks I have to address to you as
practical as possible. Will you, therefore, allow me to point out to
you what in my mind is the great danger which threatens the future
�142
|
of this education question ? I fear there is some chance that it
may be wrecked in the same way as so many good measures have
been wrecked, by accepting a compromise in part. It is all very
well for us to make bold speeches and talk outspoken language on
platforms like this, but you are little aware of the blandishments
which are brought to bear upon Liberal members when their party
introduces a bill. You say you think the bill unsatisfactory. You
then hear it whispered in your ear—“ Not going to support the bill
of your party? why, you are faithless to those whom you ought to
support 1” To show that my suspicions are not altogether illfounded, let me in one or two sentences describe to you the great
peril which the education question only narrowly escaped last
session. A National Education Bill for Scotland was introduced
into the House of Lords—a strange proceeding, to begin with. The
Dill—had when it was sent there—was infinitely worse when it left.
When it came down to the House of Commons, seeing that the Scotch
members are jealous of the interference of English members, I knew
it was no use moving myself. I went to a Scotch member, a friend,
and asked him to put down an amendment for the second reading
—an amendment similar to that which it is quite possible we may
have to move next session—that no measure of national education
could be satisfactory if it involved compulsory rating without com
pulsory attendance. You can have no conception of the pressure
which was immediately brought to bear upon that hon. member. He
was young, and he did not stand firm ; but I trust, at any rate, if
next session compulsory rating is introduced without compulsory
attendance, one at least of the fifty members of Parliament who
have joined this League—Mr. Mundella or Mr. Dixon—will be
stern enough to say this is a question on which there can he no
compromise. We are willing to wait one year, two years, or three
years, but when we have a national education measure passed, it
shall be such a measure as shall absolutely, with perfect certainty,
guarantee elementary education to every child in this kingdom.
What became of the Scotch Education Bill ? Liberal members
were told they ought to vote for it, and they did. I do not say it
to my own credit, but I believe I am almost the only English
member who, whenever there was a division on the subject, steadily
�143
walked out of the house. And what were the arguments to make
English members vote for it ? That bill, it is true, introduced into
Scotland what was never introduced into Scotland before—•
undenominational education ; but it was said, this undenomina
tional education was introduced in such a slight, slender, and
delicate form, that it ought to be passed with hurry and precipitation,
because there would be something worse in the English measure
next session. What I want is, that we shall be representing
you—the thousands who have joined this League—representing
you faithfully and accurately, if we say it is your earnest
desire that no measure of national education shall be passed
until we have the power to get a compulsory and unsectarian
system. I think we ought to have absolute security that no child
shall be permitted to work—whether we fix the age of nine, ten,
eleven, or, as Mr. Mundella suggested, twelve—no child shall be
allowed to work until it can show that it has been to school a
certain number of years. With regard to the only remaining
branch of the subject on which I shall speak—that is, the question
of applying some kind of compulsory education to the agricultural
districts—I was rejoiced more than I can describe to hear the
remarks of Mr. Paget—to hear from his own lips the admirable
success of his movement. He must be regarded as a benefactor—
the nation must feel grateful to him for having been a pioneer. When
I mention the word agricultural, I am reminded of another danger.
Here is a case you must watch carefully. Persons will rise
in the House of Commons as they have done already, and they
will say it is very well to apply the half-time system or the alter
nate day system to the industry of such a town as Birmingham,
but there is something exceptional about agriculture; we must
have a different system there. Are we not expressing your opinions
if we say that it is your desire that agriculture should not be thus
exceptionally treated ? The system that is proposed is that in
agriculture a child should not attend school either half time or
alternate days, but should attend school so many hours in the year.
If this scheme is proposed, we can at once meet it with most
valuable experience—that is the scheme that was introduced with
regard to the Print Works Act; and I say that experience con
�144
clusively demonstrates that the scheme of so many school hours’
attendance in the year has proved a lamentable and disastrous
failure. The great principle, I consider, of the half-time system
is this—that if it is properly worked, if there is a good school,
judiciously managed, the children learn better after a certain age,
and work better, if they attend school so many hours a day and
work so many hours a day. This, I believe, is one great principle
connected with the half-time system. I must, in conclusion,
apologise for having apparently introduced, yesterday, a certain
amount of discord into your deliberations. I fear some of my
remarks were misunderstood. There are some men who have not
joined this League because they differ upon minor points of detail,
upon which I also differ; especially, one of the most eminent of
your townsmen, the Bev. B. W. Dale,—no good movement in
Birmingham ought to be without his name attached to it—has
objections which I know are exactly analagous to mine. I thought,
therefore, I should state as strongly as I could what were my
objections, and that I was perfectly willing to forgive and forget
them in order to get a united movement on behalf of the movement
in order to get some good men to join this League. I am willing
to sacrifice any matter of individual opinion in order to throw my
whole heart and strength into the great, the unequalled, object of
securing unsectarian, or, if you like it better, secular compulsory
education in this country.
Mr. Webster, Q.C.: I should have hesitated to address you on
the present occasion, after the most powerful speech you have heard,,
if I had not the greatest anxiety to contribute, in whatever small
measure I can, to the success of this great movement. I am not
wholly inexperienced. I have watched for many years, as far as
time would permit me, the educational questions which have been
brought before the public' from time to time, and I have had the
satisfaction of establishing a Church of England schoool in spite of
the clergyman, in spite of the bishop, in an agricultural district
where there was none when I went into it. Nobody knows the
difficulty of such a labour who has not gone through it. I rejoice
that this League is placed upon a foundation from which it cannot
be displaced. I am satisfied, from considerable experience of Con
�145
gresses, that a more successful meeting of inauguration never took
place. I think we have to some extent lost sight, in our discus
sions, of the great practical fact with which we have to deal. The
Archdeacon, says there is an overwhelming necessity for education—
that it is a great public danger that there should be two millions of
uneducated children, growing up as Arabs in our public streets, who
will be the paupers and criminals of the next generation. That is
the fact we have to deal with, and when we are told that the
denominational or voluntary system has failed—I don’t quite like
the use of that word, failed—but it has been found incompetent to
deal with this great calamity; and therefore I trust this League will
he the means of founding a different system, which shall be more
calculated to deal with the difficulty. Let us not forget that great
fact—that we have two millions of uneducated children growing
up amongst us. That fact becomes a civil question as well as a moral
question. It is a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, and it
is patent that compulsion is the rock upon which our new system
must be founded. On this subject I adopt the admirable views of
Mr. Mundella ; and it is worthy of observation that in dealing with
this evil of ignorance we shall, in my opinion, do something to
remedy another evil also. By employing female teachers, you will
provide employment for women, and it has been proved in America
that they are admirable teachers. My own opinion about it is, that
it is an exceptional thing to find a woman who is not a good teacher,
and it is exceptional to find a man who is not a bad one. I look,
therefore, to this movement as contributing to the removal of two
great social calamities—the ignorance of the people, and the
want of employment for women. I believe we may appeal to our
friends on the other side of the Atlantic to show what might be
done by the system of Common Schools ; and, although it is
possible, for the reason stated—the want of compulsory powers—
that it may not have had all the succces that was hoped for, still
we may look to America for an example, which we shall do well to
follow. Let me remind you, that with compulsory attendance
schools must be free, and founded upon rates—local rates, because
you want local management, by men who are acquainted with the
wants and requirements of the district; and the schools must be
K
�146
subsidized by national funds, because you w,ant Government super
vision. The first step to be taken is to have a proper register kept
of all parents and children. Why should not towns be divided
into districts, as in Boston, and other cities of the States?
We have an approximation to it with reference to the elective
franchise, but we want a more perfect system to carry out that
■which, as Mr. Mundella pointed out with great force, is done so well
in Saxony. These are the practical matters we have to deal with.
If we want to get these schools free, I believe means will be found
whereby existing schools may be to a certain extent utilized; but
whether or not, let us not forget that we have to deal with two
millions of children who are growing up to be criminals or paupers,
and who will overwhelm us unless we deal with them fearlesslv.
Let me mention Joseph Lancaster : the motto he inscribed over his
own door was—“ All that will may send their children and have
them educated freely, and those who don’t wish education for
nothing may pay if they please.” He was the pioneer, in Bristol, of
what has been called the voluntary system, which lias produced
great effects, though it is inadequate to deal with the present difficulty. About the religious question : I would be very unwilling,
except from the necessity of conceding something in order that we
may all go hand in hand—I would be very unwilling that a portion
of the Scriptures should not be read day by day. But having
expressed that opinion, I would exclude all sectarian and denomi
national teaching whatever. I would follow the example of our
brethren across the Atlantic, and make it a rule that no book
teaching the tenets of any particular sect of Christians should be
purchased or used, but that they should use a portion of the Bible, in
the common English version, daily. But this is a secondary ques
tion, and I am delighted to hear Dr. Rowland Williams use the
expression “ men must be men,” because with these children left
as they are, they cannot become men—they cannot become citizens;
and let us remember people are citizens before they are Christ.ia.nR,
Our object is first to make them good citizens, and then bring them
under the influence of a proper system of religious teaching—not
teaching them religion, for I acknowledge the distinction between
religious teaching and teaching religion; but I assume religious
�147
teaching is that everything should be done with a proper regard to
■hose great truths of revelation, in which we all believe and trust.
T would not quarrel with the decision if the locality wished any
portion of the Scriptures read ; but Sunday should be kept for
religious purposes, and it should not be distracted by that kind of
teaching which is more fitted for the week days.
Dr. J. A. Langford : I am anxious to make two remarks—one
upon a point which, I think, has not been alluded to at the
Conference before, namely, that we have the highest cause to
congratulate ourselves, upon the progress which this question of
national secular education has made in this country during the last
few years. In the year 1849—only twenty years ago—an attempt
was made, in this and other towns, to organise a similar society to
this, for a similar object. It alfiiost enterely failed ; and here we
are to-day holding meetings like this, and listening to papers such
as we have heard. We have great cause to congratulate ourselves,
and to be hopeful for the future. I wanted to say also, that this League
must stick absolutely firm to the four principles which it sets out with :
that education should be compulsory, national, secular, free. There
may be a temptation to give up one of these points, because there
may be fear of a long agitation ; but it will be far better for us,
far better for the education of this country, and the question will
be far more speedily settled finally, if we persist in agitating for
this programme, than if we give up any one of the items ; for I
believe if we give up any one, the whole structure will fall about
our ears, and our children will have to do the work over again,
which we are doing now. I wished to say these two things to the
meeting, because I have laboured in this question more than .twenty
years, of my comparatively short life. Don’t let us squabble about
the meaning of the words “ sacred ” and “ secular.” Shakespeare
settled that point 300 years ago, when he said :
“ Ignorance is the curse of God.”
“ Knowledge, the wing wherewith we fly to Heaven.”
All knowledge is divine, and we have only to give children a
good secular education, and their children’s children will have for
themselves a religious education built upon it. Many people
who profess to speak for the working classes have said they
�148
were opposed to this compulsory measure. You have heard
from Mr. Applegarth, and others who mix with the working
classes, that they will not object to it, and I—as the representative
of one of the most active educational societies in this town, the
Society of Artisans, every member of which is a representative
man—can assure you that the working classes will not object to it..
Whenever this question has been brought before that society, they
have one and all declared, in support of a national system of educa
tion, secular, voluntary, free, rate-supported, supplemented by money
from the Consolidated Fund. There is no charity in going to a
school supported by rates. Look at our free libraries. Every man
who uses a book has contributed towards the purchase of it, and it
is part of his own proporty, because it is the property of the town.
So it will be with rate-supported schools ; there is no charity. They
must be secular and free.
FREE SCHOOLS.
The proceedings were resumed at half-past two, when
Mr. Alfred Field read the following paper on “Free Schools:”
—England, in the higher education, may not be behind the rest of
the world, but in the diffusion of a good general education Eng
land is very much behind other countries ; certainly much behind
Prussia, Northern Germany, Switzerland, and the United States.
It is not far from the truth if we say that while in those countries
every child receives a good useful education, less than half the
children of England carry into life with them an education that is
of any uge to them. And from this statement let us not conclude
that the education, of the masses of this country is half as good as
that of the Germans, Swiss, or Americans. Our comparative
deficiency is far greater than that; for the education of the children
I am obliged to let pass as educated, in order to make up the
half of the children of England, is very inferior in value, to the
good average education of all the children of those nations. We .
deal out a meagre pittance to half our children ; they give a liberal
measure to all. To understand more fully why the difference is so
great in the intelligence of the working classes of England, and of
�149
those countries I have referred to, we must remember that school
■education is only putting tools into the hands of the young for
after use in the real education of life ; and in those countries the
men and women, who in early life have had the doors of their minds
unlocked by instruction in excellent schools, meet together in their
homes and workshops, in the streets and in public places, and by
intelligent, social, and political intercourse, continue, or rather really
■enter into, their true education. In this country our working
people have no such educated families and neighbours to associate
with. In America the diffusion of popular knowledge and quick
intelligence, down to the very bottom of society is most astonishing
to all observant travellers. And the contrast of the slow, benighted
. minds of our lowest class, should be a warning and strong impulse,
in the cause of education, to Englishmen. You cannot discover in
the United States any line of separation, or marks of distinction
between the working classes and those we should suppose above
them. You hear people talking in groups, on the steamboats or in
the railroad carriages, with ready language and quick intelligence,
with easy manners and natural politeness ; and if you could learn,
you would find that nearly all had been educated in the public free
schools of the country, and that a good proportion of them were
working men. It cannot possibly be doubted, that the foundation
of this wonderful spread of popular knowledge and universally
quickened intellect, is the public free school. The only way in
which we can get the mass of the people of England educated, as
quickly and efficiently as will meet the awakened demand of the
country, is by a complete national system similar in principle to
that in America. If we are to make this national system complete
and sufficient, I do not think wo can dispense with any one of the
six points of our League. Our plan is clastic in its power of de
velopment. The beginning, of course, would be the establishment
everywhere of the sadly-needed efficient primary school. We must
start with primary schools. But then let each school district, as fast
as it pleases, build on them a system of secondary and high schools.
Ultimately, I hope, the new national school system will grow and
be a complete and connected system of graded schools—-primary,
secondary, and high schools—all free. Tliis system might readily be
�150
connected with the large endowed schools of the country, and
perhaps, by a system of scholarships, with the Universities. I will
ask everyone to compare a complete connected system of this sort
with the present schools. The voluntary and denominational sys
tem sets up separate, competitive, even hostile schools ; and if you
were ever to get this system developed enough to make a really good
education possible to all, you would have rival schools everywhere
too many in some parts, not enough in others—and each school
obliged to go to great expense to have a staff of different teachers,
from the infant class, to the really educated boys and girls of 14 to
16 years old. I on may have the contemptible pittance now offered
to the country continued and extended, but you cannot have the
good education demanded by England, out of the isolated denomi
national system, without enormous expense ; and this heavy cost
must in some way fall on the resources of the country. [ appeal to
everyone, acquainted with schools and education, whether, to give a
good education to all the children of England, and one higher and
more extended to the capable and diligent, it is not necessary that
we should have a connected system of graded schools, through
which the pupils shall rise by examination. As a matter of money,
the difference of cost of good education for England, between one
system and the other, is a difference between pounds and shillings.
As a practical fact, England cannot (jet good education by the deno
minational system, and she can easily by a truly national system. The
public school system of the United States, is a model for the general
education of a people. Such a system as their graded schools—pri
mary, secondary, and high schools—is demanded by economy,
and is absolutely necessary to efficient success. And the plan
of the League, not copied from them, is in truth the same in principle,
but improved, I believe, in details. The Americans are the same
people as ourselves, on the western side of the Atlantic instead of the
eastern. What they can do we can do. It is a firm and a safe position
for our League that we advocate no untried scheme, that we can
point to the complete, and grand success of it in America. The
public school system of the United States is the foundation of
their political edifice, and is the true cause of their extraordinary
industrial, and commercial prosperity. The rapid growth of wealth
�151
in the country, the happiness and morality of its people, and the
political safety of the nation, depend on the public school system.
Now, I have a few words to say on the desirability of having our
schools free to the scholars, and paid for out of rates supplemented
by Government grants—not by voluntary contributions, and school
pence. It is a necessary part of the completeness of the system
that the schools should he paid for by rates. If the control of the
national schools, of each school district should rest, as we think it
should, with the Corporation or other local authorities, who would
doubtless appoint a school committee to manage them, then the
right of the Corporations to this control, would be derived from
their being elected by the ratepayers, who would pay for the schools.
I have tried to show that a complete, connected, organized system of
graded schools is necessary to efficiency and economy; in fact, that
we cannot get a good education for all the people without. It
might be possible to have such an organized connected system of
national schools in France, without their being under the local
authorities : I do not think this is possible in England any more
than in America. I think that the position that schools should be
paid for by rates, is naturally connected with the other one, that
they should be under the control of local authorities ; and that
they should be free to all, would be made easy by their being
paid for by rates and Government grants. I think, first, that they
should be free to all children; and, secondly, that all children should
be required by law to go to the national schools, or some other school,
are two conditions, independent and complementary one of the
other. I cannot practically and successfully say to a man, 11 I will
compel you to send your child to school,” unless I say at the same
time, “ Here is a good school without charge, which belongs to you
tor the use of your children.” On the other hand, I cannot justly
say to a man, “You must pay your quota to the school-rate,”
unless I am able, in answer to his enquiry, also to say “ that all
children will now go to school; the law requires it and gives us
power to compel attendance, and we will see the law carried out
gently, considerately, with patient persuasion, but ultimately and as a
last resourse, by force, if in some few cases it should turn out to be
necessary.” I can tell this ratepayer that he himself will be bene
�152
fited by the money lie pays, that he never made so good an invest
ment in his life, or one that will bring so good a monetary return.
A commercial man myself, with almost as much personal knowledge
of America as I have of England, I have often pointed out to my
fellow merchants that the United States are now manufacturing
and exporting to the English Colonies and the common markets of
the world many articles, to a large amount, that formerly were
made in this district. In doing this, the American manufacturers
work under the enormous weight of nearly double the cost of the
iron and steel out of which the articles are made, and nearly double
the English rate of wages, to the American workmen that make
them ; and yet they send these articles to our English Colonies, and
thus supersede those that used to be imported from Birmingham.
What is the explanation ? There is none other than that of the greater
intelligence of the American workmen. And the foundation of this
high intelligence and ductility of mind is the American public free
school. Every £1,000 rightly expended for the education of the
future English workmen will produce, in a very few years, a return
of £10,000 to the country. Every ratepayer will receive an ample
return, at an early day, in the increased material wealth of the
country, of which all deserving merchants, manufacturers, trades
men, and capitalists will get each his own share. England, to
maintain her place among the nations, must educate her people.
Even as a manufacturing country, to keep her place—or, rather, to
check the yearly diminution of her proportion of the supply
of the world, with articles above the coarsest product of low
labour—England must educate her people. German merchants
have been for years, and rapidly too, supplanting English
goods the world over, with the products of the educated work
men of Rhenish Prussia, Saxony, and North Germany. The
manufactories of the United States, have been for years sending
hardware, and other manufactures to all new countries of the world
in place of English goods. And whenever they get rid of the
burden of an absurd protection system, the American manufacturers
are destined to cover the world, with their skilfully made articles,
each so intelligently suited to the purpose it is. intended for.
Without education, England must fall behind other nations ; we
�153
have already lost much, and we cannot begin too soon to knock oft'
the shackles of ignorance from our workmen. On the other hand,
with education, the sturdy inhabitants of the land, will make Great
Britain more and more the wonderful island of the world. In this
way, indirect though it may be called, I believe will the chief
return come to the ratepayers, for their investment in the new
national schools. But look at a more direct saving :—The rate
payers of England and Wales paid last year nearly eleven and a
half millions for poor rates ; the cost of the police for the year was
more than two millions • the cost of the prisons for the year was
more than one million ;—reformatories I have left out. Put the
poor rates, prisons, and police together, and the sum is more than
fourteen and a half millions. Educate the people, and does not
every one see, that the annual sum he will pay for the school rate
will soon reduce a man’s expense in poor rates, police and prison
expenses ? This dreadful sum—fourteen and a half millions—paid
for catching and punishing our rogues and maintaining our paupers,
is the shame of England. Educate your people, and in a very few
years the saving out of this fourteen and a half millions, will more
than pay your school rates. One proof that education will diminish
crime, and therefore the expense of punishing it, is found in the
ignorance oi our convicted criminals. The returns of the state of
education of the inmates of our gaols, for each of the two last
years show, that ninety-six out of every hundred could not read or
write, or only so imperfectly as to be of no use to them. In
America a native-born mendicant or pauper is very rare indeed.
Why is this ? Mainly because all have been educated, in the
public free schools of the country. Our present voluntary system
is unfair: the few contributors to the expenses of the denomi
national schools, pay for the large number who will not give. The
payment by rates will cause every man who pays rates to contribute
his proportion : and by so doing he will obtain a just right to use
the schools for which he pays his share. Those who are too poor
to pay rates, will send their children without pay, but without the
degradation of thinking they are paid for by charity. The child
ren of the country will stream into the new national schools—all
equal in the right to enter there, none oppressed with the degrading
�154
badge of charity. The very poor, and no others, will send their
children without contributing to the cost of the schools. Let me
ask many excellent men, who object to our schools being free,
whether this would not be a result much the same as they advocate.
Every ratepayer will be interested in the schools being well con
ducted. A real public opinion, exactly to the purpose, will be
created, and upon public opinion the character and success of the
schools will essentially depend. The ratepayer will justly want to
see the schools good enough to receive his own children. This will
help the schools to improve; and in school districts, with many
primary schools, secondary schools will soon spring up, to be fol
lowed later, probably, by a high school, belonging to several
districts. Thus, many ratepayers will get their money’s worth in
such schools as suit their own children. But some gentlemen
object, in the outset, to schools being free, saying, “ Englishmen are
apt to attach little value to what costs them nothing.” To this
objection I would reply, that at present, under the denominational
system, of those who send their children to National or British
Schools, none pay, in school pence, more than about one-third the
cost of teaching, and the very poor are, from charity, generally paid
for by others. In the system of payment by rates, all but the very
poor will pay in their rates ; and the very poor are now paid for in
a way tending more to injure their self-respect, than the way we
propose. But is it true that people do not value what they do not
pay for ? Englishmen value free parks, free common rights, and,
what is closer to the present case, free libraries paid for out of rates,
and free grammar schools. The truth is, I think, that people
value anything that is good, even if they do not pay for it. The
people of the United States,'who are of the same stock as ourselves,
value their free public schools, as their dearest birthright ; yes,
almost as much as they value the Union inself. I think gentlemen
uttering this objection will, on a little thought, give it up. Looking
at the call for education, from no higher point of view than the
mere economical one, I would say that not the coal of England,
not her iron, not the fields of her cultivated farms, can compare
in importance even to her material wealth, with the minds of her
people. In the brains of the children of this country Englishmen
�155
will find the true mine of wealth to work in. You may work here
without fear of exhausting the ore, and the wealth here contained
includes all the rest.
UNSECTARIANISM.
The Rev. F. Bariiam Zincke, Vicar of Wherstead, Suffolk, and
Chaplain-in-Ordinary to the Queen, read the following paper :—
I have been requested by our Committee to lay before the members
of the National Education League, at this our first general meeting,
a brief summary of the reasons which have brought us to the con
clusion, that the teaching of the schools we wish to see established
ought to be unsectarian. By unsectarian, we mean teaching, that
omits the inculcation of those particulars of religious instruction
which differentiate, the conflicting sections of the religious world in
this country. The reasons which have brought us to this conclusion
may be readily stated. Of course, wn are not satisfied with our
existing schools. First, because they fail to reach large classes of
our population. In this very town in which we are assembled there
is a sufficient number of children of the school age, growing up
uneducated, to form the population of no mean city. It is so, more
or less, in every city of the kingdom, and with a very large propor
tion of the rural population. To go into particulars—it is so
with the children of our criminal classes ; it is so with that class
which supplies our 1,000,000 paupers, and that still larger host
which is pauperised in spirit, and on the brink of the abyss of
pauperism. Take the first 100 agricultural labourers you can col
lect from the fields, take 100 operatives from the nearest factory,
take 150,000 soldiers, or 50,000 sailors, and what, we may ask,
will be the proportion, in these different sections of the community,
that our present school system has effectually reached 1 The state
of things this reveals we regard as an enormous evil, the continuance
of which can be no longer tolerated. Our present denominational,
and, as it is called, voluntary system—but it would be nearer the
truth to call it eleemosynary,—has, after a long and fair trial, left
us in this position. We believe that it has failed because it is
denominational and eleemosynary. Such a system does not aim at
educating the nation, and could not succeed were it to aim at doing
�156
it. But as it has been tried, and found wanting, and as we are
fully persuaded that it can never accomplish what is needed, we are
driven to the conclusion that nothing can do the work except a
public system; and we hold that nothing else will befit the dignity
of a free, and, very properly, a proud people. A public system, of
■course, can only be supported by public funds, and therefore must
be unsectarian ; for everyone who contributes either towards the
local rates, or the general taxation of the country, will have grounds
for insisting, that his contributions shall not be used for the purpose
of teaching what he conscientiously objects to. The compromise
-of our present denominational system, is a demonstration that the
great majority of, at all events, the upper and middle classes of the
people of this country feel in this way. Another reason for om’
dissatisfaction with the present system, is the insufficiency of the
instruction it gives, to those whom it does, in some sort, reach. Our
present theory and practice appear to come to this, that nothing is
possible or desirable, for the great bulk of the people—the
lower strata of the middle classes, and the working millions
{setting the -question of religion aside for the moment)—but
a smattering of grammar. This is a natural deduction from
the idea, that all that is possible or desirable in our highest education
—that is, for the education of that part of the people of this country
who are giving up nearly a third of tlieir lives to school and college—
is, that they should become the subjects, or the victims, of an attempt
to make them classical scholars. So that when the work of education
has been completed (it is so for all classes among us alike), no one
thing has been taught, which has the slightest bearing on the know
ledge or the thoughts of the age; which in any way fits us for the life
we have to live, and the world we have to live in or which makes
us at all acquainted with the materials we shall have to work with,
■or which gives us any guidance for the work we shall have to do.
Nothing has been taught which does at all contribute, as Bacon
puts it, towards the relief of man’s estate, or towards making us
more manly or more godly. I use this last word, because it calls
attention to the accusation, our opponents are so loud in alleging
against the scientific training we wish to see imparted in our
.schools. Bor our part, we do not believe that the effect of the ac
�157
quaintance with. Latin and Greek, and of the little grammatical
instruction that is given in our existing schools, is especially
religious. But we are of opinion that science, being only a know
ledge of the ideas that were in the intelligence of God, before they
were embodied in the objects, the operations, the forces, and thelaws of nature, can never take _us further from, but must always
bring us nearer to, God. In short, our present aims appear to us
very much like a pretence to teach something—a something, we
believe, which will rarely awaken thought, and will be of incon
ceivably little use to any of us, just and precisely for the very pur
pose of hindering the teaching of something else, which would
awaken thought, and which would be of very great use. We do
not, then, go in for a reform of these ideas and practices, but—I
hope I shall not compromise our League by the word—for a
revolution. We wish to give every one an opportunity for being
taught just what he will want to know. We wish to see our
primary schools, teaching the whole population the instrumental
parts of education—reading, writing, and ciphering—as well and as
universally as these things are taught in Northern Germany, and in
the New England States. And we wish to see the schools, cominw
next above our primary schools, aming chiefly at industrial, tech
nical, and scientific training, and at the correct use of our mother
tongue. I need not now say anything about schools of a higher
grade. It is possible for us—for it is done elsewhere—to impart
even to working men a very serviceable amount of this kind of
knowledge, which will not only make them better workmen, and
so enable us to maintain our position in the open market of the
world, but will also make the recipients of this knowledge them
selves, better and wiser men. Our beau ideal of a national system
of education is, that it should be so organised as to place within the
reach of every child in the country, free of all cost, the most
complete and thorough training our present knowledge admits of,
whatever his employment or profession is to be—whether that of
an agricultural labourer, a mechanic, or a miner; whether a
physician, a minister of religion, or a literary man;—and that no
bounties should be given to, and special preferences shown for,
any particular callings or professions, but that the circumstances of
�158
the parents, and the disposition and aptitude of the child, should
alone decide in each, case what the calling or profession is to be.
The realisation of such an ideal might a few years back, have
appeared quite beyond our reach; but it does not appear to be so
now, at all events to the members of this League; for we fancy
that we are able to catch a glimpse of it; and some approximation
to it is the goal of our thoughts and efforts. Now, we see no hope
of the general establishment, under the present system, of schools
of the kind I have been speaking of. It is inconceivable that
they will ever be established by the clergy, or by the ministers
of Nonconformist congregations, who are the chief promoters
and managers of our present schools. Because, then, we see no
shadow of a prospect of these things being taught in our present
denominational schools, which have been established for quite a
different object, we advocate the establishment of another set of
schools without any sectarian objects, which, as they will be partly
supported by local funds, will be managed by persons who will be
interested in having these things taught. This is the conclusion
we come to, when we regard the schools from the point of view
that will be taken, by those who will pay for them. We come to
the same conclusion, if we look at them from the point of view
that will be taken by those who are to use them. They must be
•equally free to all. No hindrance must be interposed, which would
be an obstacle to their being used by any member of the
•community. Now, the inculcation in the schools, of denomina.tional differences would be a hindrance of this kind. From our
wish, therefore, to make the schools equally open to all, we would
not have anything taught in them, to which any Christian people
do conscientiously object. We are all of opinion that as things
now are (we believe that it will not always be so), in some cases
some form or degree of compulsion, to secure attendance will be
necessary. Things have now come to such a pass, that the security
and well-being of society demand this. As we have already noticed,
with a yearly aggregate of 125,000 committals, with more than
1,000,000 paupers, and with a still vaster host on the brink of pauper
ism ; and with multitudes among us who do not know the name of
the reigning Sovereign, or of the Saviour of the World, and who
�159
derive their only ideas of right and wrong from the policeman; and
with our agricultural labourers, in a condition intellectually so
degraded, that the most sanguine politicians among us forbear to
demand for them the franchise, we think this necessary. But we
trust that, like the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland,
the necessity for compulsion will be temporary. The late extension
of the franchise, which places political power largely in the hands
of the uneducated, confirms us in our view of this necessity. But,
of course, the question of compulsion cannot be for a moment
entertained, so long as we have no other than our present denomina
tional schools. We cannot compel the children of Nonconformists
to attend the rector’s or vicar’s school; and the children of
Episcopalians anti-prelatical schools. The attempt could not be
made. These converging reasons, then, oblige us to advocate
unsectarian education in the schools we aim at establishing. But
we have not arrived at this conclusion, without having carefully
weighed the consequences of what we propose. We have looked
into the facts which bear on the consideration of the question,
and have estimated the pros and cons of the arguments that deal
with its probabilities; and, having done this, we have found no
.grounds for apprehension. The great and conspicuous facts con
tributed by past and contemporary history are easily stated, and
will be easily understood. In Italy and Spain—the countries in
which, whatever education there may have been, has been most
■completely of the kind, advocated by the supporters of our denominational system—the result has not been good as regards literature,
science, and, above all, as regards religion itself. The example of
Erance, as far as the education of the people of that country has
been in the hands of the clergy, points to the same conclusion.
There, too, the reaction against religion appears to be in the ratio
of the force religion has brought to bear, in the manner we are
now speaking of, upon the minds of the young. I should not
think it worth while to recall the fact, that the most celebrated
pupil of the Jesuits was Voltaire, were it not that the spirit of
Voltaire is so common among Frenchmen. Every one will under
stand that there is no question about bringing up children without
religion; the only question is as to the best way of making a
�160
people religious. The lesson Ave are taught by the experience of
Prussia is on the same side. There the Government has made
religious instruction, according to a certain formula, a part of the
school course. Again we ask what has been the result ? Upon
this very question, we have lately had a discussion in the columns
of the Times, which has left pretty distinctly impressed upon us
one fact, at all e\ ents that in Prussia the attempt to teach religion
in the school, according to a definite formulary has been a signal
and complete failure. The reason is not far to seek. It is impossible to teach religion in this way. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody
else, would be disposed in favour of doctrines forced upon us in this
Avay. Religion is not the child of drill and compulsion. I pass
from Northern Germany to another great country, Avhere, fortu
nately for the purposes of this inquiry, the two systems are brought
into the closest and most distinct contrast. The fruits of the one
are seen, side by side with the fruits of the other. In the United
States of America a large proportion of the population are German
immigrants, Avho were brought up under the school system just
mentioned. Throughout the North and the great West, they are
everywhere living intermingled with the native population, Avho
have all been brought up in Avhat we should call unsectarian schools.
It thus becomes easy to judge, upon which of these two people
religion has the greater hold. In the winter of 1867-68,1 travelled
through the Union, with the exception of the Pacific States. Among
other matters, my attention was naturally very much directed to
Avhatever had any bearings on the religious question. I frequently
heard native Americans speaking of the absence, as it appeared to
them, of the religious element in the character of their German felloAV
citizens; while at the same time, I everywhere saw clear evidence
of the streng religious feeling of the native population, brought up,,
almost to a man, as I just noticed, not merely in unsectarian, but
in secular schools. Wherever I Avent I saw and inspected schools
of this kind, and no others—on the Prairies of the West, and the
Rocky Mountains, as well as in Massachusetts. But the first
buildings that met my eyes, almost in every place, were the
churches—at Denver, beyond the Prairies and the Plains, and
further on, in the little mining toAvns in the Rocky Mountains, as
�161
much as in Boston itself. And we must remember, that these
churches have been built, and that their Ministers are supported
by those, who were all the while very busy in clearing away the
forest, and reclaiming the wilderness, and raising the first shelter for
man. As a general ride in the country I am speaking of, where all the
schools are secular, the foundations of the homestead and of the
House of God, are laid simultaneously. I believe—though of course
no one can be in a position to prove it—that a larger amount of
money is raised every year, by voluntary contributions for religious
purposes in the United States, than, over the whole continent of
Europe. Those who question our conclusion will have to convince
us that, notwithstanding these facts, the Continental school system
is more conducive to the interests of religion than the American.
What we want them to do is to disprove, or if they are unable
to do this, to bring into harmony with their theory, the asser
tion, that in those countries in which their plan has been most
thoroughly carried out, there exists the greatest amount of
hostility to religion; while in that great country in which
education is most throughly secular, more so than in any
other country in the world, more money is voluntarily given for
religious purposes, and the ministers of religion are held in higher
estimation, than in any other part of Christendom. But we are
not without experience ourselves on this question. Generally
speaking, our schools are denominational; and, again speaking
generally, the class which in the towns is most largely indebted to
them for its education, is that of the artisans. Now, if the theory
of our opponents is the true one, we ought to see the good results
of it here. But what is the fact ? We have been told again and
again, that there is no other class in the community which has
strayed so largely, and so far from the fold in which they were
brought up. Take a large London national school, under the
shadow of an imposing London Church. I take it for granted that
the greater part of the scholars, are either children of artisans or,
if not, still will be brought up to some handicraft. We may ask
how many of those, who have been brought up in that school are
ever seen in that Church? and what is the expectation in this
matter, respecting those who are now in the school ? It can, then,
L
�162
hardly be the results of our present system, which make any of us
desirous of maintaining it. We have another domestic instance
in the case of the Irish Roman Catholics, who for many generations
have maintained their religion, as no other people in Europe have
done, in consequence, not of the aid, but of the neglect, and even
the hostility of the State. Facts of this kind lead us to the
conclusion, that in advocating unsectarian schools, we are most
assuredly not acting in hostility to religion. I will only make one
more remark. All these schools will be day schools. The
children will, therefore, be still living at home. The parents will
thus have, in the morning and evening of each day, and during
the whole of Saturday and Sunday, as much opportunity as
probably they have at present, for bringing up their children
religiously. The Sunday school will supply similar opportunities
to the clergy, and other religiously-disposed persons. We know
that there will always be parents, who will be living immoral and
irreligious lives; but in the case of the children even of such
parents as these, we do not think that any advantage would result
from the teaching of the schools, being of a sectarian character.
Of course, no one supposes for a moment that there will be any
irreligious, or anti-Christian instruction, given in any school in the
kingdom supported by public money, and under the joint super
vision of a Government inspector, and of a local board of manage
ment. I will sum up in half a dozen words the different
arguments I have been laying before you—we cannot get what
we want without unsectarian teaching; and we see no reason for
supposing that evil consequences of any kind will result from it.
SECULAR EDUCATION.
The Hon. Auberon Herbert read the following paper on
“ Secular Education”:—In asking that national education should be
unsectarian—that is, unconnected with the teaching of any creed—
we shall all recognize the obligation of considering gravely if, under
such a system, the moral and spiritual life of the people will suffer
injury. With such a feeling in my mind, I shall try to show that
it is not merely the readiest way of dealing with our religious diffi
culties, but that it is to be desired in itself, as the system under
�163
which the office that the State, and the office that ministers of
religion hold in trust for the people, will he better understood and
better discharged. There still exists amongst us some confusion of
thought on this subject. We have formed the habit of looking
upon morality as the property, the special province of the clergy.
If this were a just view—as morality is of all things the most
important—then the present denominational system would be very
incomplete, the system of the middle ages, and Dr. Manning’s
teaching of to-day would be right, and all education ought to be
placed in the hands of the Churches. But morality is not to be
enclosed within such narrow bounds. Morality is of the home, and
the street, and the public building, as much as of the Church and the
class-room. Its limits, its tendencies, its developments are not
determined by a class amongst us, but by the action of all those
mixed intelligences which form society. The professional teachers
have always conformed, and must conform, to the climate of opinion
that grows round them. Even the seat of infallibility itself cannot
rise above this influence, and thanks to “modern Liberalism,” which
it excommunicates, the syllabus of to-day is milder than the syllabus
of earlier ages. If, then, morality is in no fashion a class-property,
who are to be responsible for the teaching of it 1 I answer, the
State, for that which concerns the State; our Churches, for that,
which concerns the Churches. Both have duties of teaching morality,. ■
though their appeal lies to different sanctions. The State has.
simply to deal with the relations of man to man ; the minister of
religion deals not only with these, but with the relations of man to
God. It may, however, be urged that the relations of man to man
are too vague, to be a matter of teaching. I reply, that the State
has never yet found them too vague to be a matter of punishment;
and he who is an awarder of punishment, is bound to know why he
punishes, is bound to act on principles which he can clearly explain,
and which, when explained, will command the moral consent of
those who obey. How shall the State do this ? I answer, by giving
to every child a clear conception, of the fact of his existence as a
member of society, and of the birth with him of obligations whicH
limit his actions towards others • by leading him to understand
what law is—to understand the necessity that where men and women.
�164
live together they should live under law, and the spirit and inten
tions of the laws, which a civilized community imposes on itself. It
must show him that the happiness of society, its power of progres
sion, its power of enjoying higher pleasures, impose on its members,
many obligations—obligations of truthful speech, of upright dealing,
of respect for feelings as well as rights—obligations which cannot
be neglected, without somewhere inflicting injury upon that society
which he is learning to place higher than his own individual ex
istence. Under such teachings the social bond will pass from the
region of phrases, and become to our children as they grow up a
distinct and living reality. The State will no longer be to them a
powei existing outside of themselves, a machine of resistless force
for imposing burdens, and inflicting penalties; but duties owed to
the State will be duties owed to themselves, and slowly, after’
many centuries, but safely in the end, for them if not for us, the
neglected facts of a common humanity will emerge out of the dif
ferences of class and sect. Such is the office of the State as regards
moral teaching, an office which it cannot rightly place out of itsown hands. The minister of religion appeals above, and beyond
these earthly sanctions. It is his, to lead us to form the largest and
noblest conceptions of God, and of God’s dealings ; to teach us to.
know the depth of that spiritual nature which is within us, and
the never-ceasing consolation we may draw from it. The last
minutes of my time, shall be given to consider the influence which
an unsectarian system of education, would exert upon the teachings
of the churches. These teachings would not be diminished ; for
those who labour for the spread of any religious belief would be
freed from all anxiety and responsibility, as regards the other parts
of education, and would be able to devote all their energy to their
special work. By the side of the State education there would grow
up, as in America, a great religious organization, voluntary in man
agement, voluntary in attendance, and taking great hold of the
mind of the people. Still greater would be the influence of the
system, upon the spirit of the teaching. As the State assumes an
attitude of perfect toleration and impartiality, refusing to disavow
the unity of national life, refusing to believe that those things
which divide are stronger than those which unite, I cannot doubt
�165
that the religious teachings of this country, will be affected by the
-example of the State, and gain in breadth and charity. Do not let
us hide from ourselves the fact, that the religious teachings of to-day
must pass through the fire, and all that is narrow and intolerant —
■all that is superstitious, all that fears the light, must be burnt
from them, if in the future they are to command the strongest
minds, and to act with a living, force upon the consciences of the
people. That this may come to pass, that the spiritual life amongst
us may be freer and purer, the State must faithfully discharge its
-own duties, and leave the churches to discharge theirs. A
■country whose churches are built upon the belief, (I quote the
words) “ that every individual must find his separate way to God
by the use of his own intellect and conscience,” cannot make a
State-lesson of the teaching of any church. But one thing it owes to
-every church, and that is to act in the belief, that great national
measures, across the face of which a people’s unity, and a people’s
toleration for every belief and opinion are written in plain
■characters, are religious lessons, which, however silently, reach all
hearts and influence all lives. I ought to add to this paper an ex
planation of a practical character. I have tried to show that un
sectarian education is not irreligious in its influence, I have tried
to show that it is the best form of national education ; but let it be
■understood that I do not wish to displace the present system. All
that I ask is, that the State should frankly recognize the unsectarian
system, allowing it to be introduced, first, where the inhabitants of
-a district desire the system, and decide to rate themselves • secondly,
where a district fails to supply itself with proper school accomo
dation, and is required to rate itself, by the central office or the
■district board. Where schools on the new and old system come
together in the same district, I confess my belief that the old
•schools must give up children’s pence, as a condition of existence ;
but if the State grant be raised, as Mr. Dixon proposes, to twothirds of the total expenses, school managers will have only to
raise about the same sum as at present, which is not an unfair tax
for continuing the luxury of denominational teaching. If all
■existing denominational schools, are wise enough to accept a
satisfactory conscience clause, Government inspection, and a
�166
registry of school attendance, they have probably a long life
before them ; as long, indeed, as their own vitality lasts. Englishwise, we wish, if it be possible, to work out the new pattern, with
out destroying the threads of the old warp.
MISCONCEPTIONS AS TO SECULAR INSTRUCTION.
Mr. G. J. Holyoake read a paper entitled “ Misconceptions as
to Secular Instruction.” He said : In public life it sometimes
: happens that particular persons excite terror and apprehension, yet
when the nation comes to know them, they are found to be wise
and pacific counsellors. The same thing often occurs with
debatable terms. A particular phrase is regarded with hasty
distrust, which, should it be looked at dispassionately, would be
found to indicate exactly what the nation is in want of. Such a
phrase is secular instruction. Eor all the purposes of national
education, it is sufficient to define secular instruction, as that kind
of instruction which pertains to the efficiency of the workman
and the duties of the citizen ; instruction which must be given,
and given with very great distinctness, or the working class will be
cheated of that knowledge which can alone make them creditable
and intelligent members of the State, able to acquit themselves in
the international competition, destined to grow fiercer in coming
years. Now, the term secular in no way denies or questions
that spiritual education which, in proper time and place, can,
in the opinion of most persons, inculcate yet higher motives to
nobleness, and peradventure conduct to the knowledge of God.
That knowledge which is secular is not, as many imagine,
necessarily opposed to that which is religious. It is merely distinct
from it. It merely ignores that which stands outside its province.
Just as mathematics ignores chemistry and does not assail it; just
as jurisprudence ignores geology, but does not deny it; so that
which is secular, stands apart from theology, but neither denies nor
assails it. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I, who have
elsewhere given special currency to the term, have always defined
and explained it. It is true that some persons, not understanding
the integrity of the term, have used it in a confusing way ; but I
take it, that the educated instinct of gentlemen is to employ a term
�167
in its intrinsic signification, and not to insist upon an interpretation
of it, founded upon its obvious abuse. All that the advocates of
secular instruction ask is, that the education given at the cost of
the State shall relate to the duties exacted by the State; and
these duties are, that the workman shall be able to maintain his
family, to pay whatever taxes are levied upon him, give no trouble
to the police, make no demands upon the parish, and fight generally
whomsoever the Government may see fit to involve us in war with.
Whatever knowledge is necessary, to enable the future workman to
do these things is his right, and should be given him in the
speediest manner ; and any other inculcation which shall delay this
knowledge on its way, or confuse the learner in acquiring it, is a
loss to the State and a peril to the child. It is in the interest of
public economy, that secular instruction should be given by order,
and religious instruction by option. Anyone who has had
experience of the working class, knows that what they suffer most
from is confusion of mind. They cannot see one thing at a
time. They mix up other considerations with the case in
hand. They judge the question before them, in the light of
something else. This is the source of that weakness and
prejudice, which often make them so impracticable. This habit
of the untrained mind, instead of being corrected, has been
confirmed by that mixed education, that confusion of things sacred
and secular, which charity and misconception, have made the
rule in this country. In Parliament, that member alone is regarded
as competent, and as not wasting the time of the House, who can
discern what the point before it is, and who can keep to it when he
does. We want this power in the workshop. The national scheme
which is not going to impart it, is going to waste the money of the
ratepayer. Mixed education makes muddle-minded scholars. To
acquire only what you need to know, to think out one thing at a
time, to keep separate things distinct in the mind, is economy in
learning, and is the shortest path to efficiency. The nation is busy,
and the people have no money or time to spare, and the State is
bound to adopt the speediest and cheapest transit to public know
ledge. No one has a right to stand in the way of this, in the
presence of a nation ignorant and struggling ; and struggling because
�168
it is ignorant. Many demur to secular knowledge because they do
not know why it is wanted, nor perceive what it will do. They
forget, that in England every inch of ground has a proprietor. Not
a fish in the river, not a bird in the air, hardly a flower on the
bank, but has an owner. A mechanic, as a rule, finds that employ
ment comes by chance, and wages by caprice. He must not steal,
or conspire, or fight. Secular sense and secular skill, are the only
usable weapons which can keep him from the poorhouse. Piety,
ever so conspicuous, scarcely fetches any price in the market. The
most devout employer, adjusts the wages he gives according to the
swiftness and expertness of his workmen. There is no creed, the
profession of which will induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
remit the assessed taxes, or the magistrate to excuse the non
payment of local rates. The State, therefore, is bound to expend
the public money in productive knowledge, and the only knowledge
which is productive is secular; and this knowledge the State is
bound in prudence and justice to give to the people. But this
knowledge, which will mercifully aid the children of the workman,
will make them clear-minded and grateful : and gratitude and intel
ligence, are the fairest of all the handmaids of reverence. With
secular instruction, religion will acquire freshness and new force.
The clergyman and the minister, will exercise a new influence,
because their ministrations will have dignity and definiteness. They
will no longer delegate things declared by them to be sacred, to be
taught second-hand by the harassed, over-worked, and oft reluctant
schoolmaster and schoolmistress, who must contradict the gentleness
of religion by the peremptoriness of the pedagogue, and efface the
precept that “ God is love,” by an incontinent application of the
birch. An enemy of religion would prescribe exactly this course,
if he sought to make it distasteful, and terrorful to the child. It is
not secular instruction which breeds irreverence, but this ill-timed
familiarity with the reputed things of God, which robs divinity of
its divineness. There is one advantage of the secular rule of instruc
tion which might commend it to all earnest men. So long as
religion is taught apart from school instruction, and with optional
attendance, it will matter little whether it is “ sectarian” or not.
Sectarianism is not a sin, when it ceases to be intolerant. It is then
�169
but that honest form of faith, which best supplies the wants of the
soul professing it. To reduce religion to an impossible generalization
of the Bible, and the mere belief in God—creating a sort of Par
liamentary piety (which is what is meant by “unsectarianism”)—is
to efface the individuality of devotion, which makes religion pic
turesque and passionate, and is harder for the earnest believer to
accept than secular instruction, which meddles intentionally neither
with his faith, nor his conscience. The last misconception relates to
the extent of this question. A magnitude is imputed to it which
does not exist. We are not dealing with education in its full sense
at all. That means the sum of all those influences of home, and
church, and society, which form the individual character. The State
never proposes to deal with these. The scheme before us does not
contemplate it, and would have no power to effect it if it did. All
we ask is, that in every district in England, the children of the
working class shall surely get as good an intellectual training, as the
children of the working class can get in any country in the world.
Tliis can be given in a few hours a day—in a few years of every
child’s life. This is the extent of the scheme proposed by this
League. Secular instruction, if adopted, will deal, during that brief
term, merely with the mechanical routine of elementary knowledge,
and the passionless facts of science; while it leaves in all the other
years, and during all other times, the young learner to the teachers
of religion, whose province is that side of human nature which
comes in contact with the infinite; where emotions arise which
colour life for evermore, and passions are stirred which pertain to
eternity, by the side of which, most men deem all that pertains to
this life minor and transitory. Should we succeed to the utmost of
our wishes, the State-student will still be under the far-reaching
influences of the nurse, the mother, and the minister ; churches and
chapels will still exist, and Sunday schools will still remain open,
and able to confine themselves to Sunday knowledge, which will
have distinctive value then. Household piety will still prevail,with
an interest which it now lacks ; theologians will still write, and
their literature still cover the land ; the institutions and character
of the country will still be Christian, and in a more self-respecting
and genial sense than now. Splendid philanthropy will still illus
�170
trate the human tenderness of Christ. Nothing will have been
changed, except that the nation will have added intelligence to its
greatness. The brain of the common people will be cleared and
trained, and every working father and mother, will thank with
gratefid heart that State which has given their clrildren the priceless
blessing of self-defensive knowledge.
DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS.
Mr. Jesse Collings, Honorary Secretary, read a paper which had
been prepared by Mr. H. J. Slack, and in which the “principle” of
Denominational Schools was examined. Mr. Slack, in his paper
said :—As powerful parties in this country, holding various and
opposite opinions upon theological subjects, have pronounced in
favour of what is called the “ Denominational System of National
Education,” an accurate investigation of the principles of such a
scheme, and of the consequences which flow therefrom, is urgently
needed. An objection of some force might be taken, at starting, to
the illogical linking together of the two distinct things designated
by the words, “ Denominational ” and “ National.” In a country
in which a multiplicity of denominations flourish, and divide
society into numerous parties, that which is denominational stands
in obvious contrast to that which is national. Considered from
the point of theological classification, to be denominational is to be
sectarian, and if regarded from a purely social or political point of
view, it is to be sectional, and though the nation comprehends all
its subordinate divisions, it cannot be confounded with them ; and
it should be remembered that large masses of people do not range
themselves in definite ranks, and that consequently the whole of
the denominations is a much smaller quantity than the whole of
the people. It is not customary to consider any church as a
national church, unless it is the special object of a State patronage
not accorded to other churches. If it merely stands as one
amongst many religious bodies, all of which receive State aid in
proportion to their numbers, it would be regarded as the church of
a larger or smaller section of the community, as the case might be,
and any such institution having the support of the majority to-day,
might, from change of opinion, represent only a minority to-morrow.
�171
In countries where various religious communities receive State pay,
the term “ concurrent endowment ” designates the kind of relation
that is thus established. In like manner, an educational system in
which various bodies, holding distinctive opinions, all received
pecuniary support from the general taxation of the country, would
be one of “ concurrent endowmentand if differences of theo
logical creed separated these bodies from each other, the Govern
ment which supported, or helped to support all, would act quite as
much upon the plan of “ concurrent endowment of religions,” as if,
instead of providing funds towards mingling reading and writing
with particular creeds, it gave the same amount of money towards
the church services of each sect. The denominational school
master, who is engaged to teach particular theological propositions as
well as to conduct the ordinary secular studies of a school, is, if not
the priest, at least the minister, of the sect employing him j and as
his two functions would be intimately blended, it would be a mere
subterfuge to say that State aid was given to him for his arith
metic without his catechism ; not for his doctrines of salvation, but
his rule-of-three. If the State aid took the form of local rates,
levied throughout the country, by order of an Imperial Act
of Parliament, and upon general principles of assessment, the
Government by which the scheme was carried out, would com
pel each ratepayer to contribute to the support of other folks’
religions, whether he liked them or not. The Evangelical Dis
senter would be compelled to contribute towards teaching, in the
schools of the Roman Catholics, what he conscientiously believed
to be soul-destroying errors; the Trinitarian would give his sub
scription towards inculcating the doctrines of the Unitarian, and
each party, in turn, would find • its conscience and its pocket
oppressed with the burden of sustaining doctrines it denied and
opinions it deemed to be mischievous and absurd. To be con
sistent in legislation, State aid for teaching various kinds of
theology in denominational schools ought to be supplemented by
similar aid, if required, to support the same sorts of theology in
churches or chapels. When, under the name of “ concurrent
endowment, it was recently proposed to do this in Ireland, an over
whelming mass of public opinion decided against it, and, indeed,
�172
if the nation had been in favour of the principle it involved, we
should not in this country have arrived at the abolition of com
pulsory church rates ; but our Legislature would have arranged
that if Dissenters paid for the theology of Churchmen, Churchmen
should make all square by paying for dissenting theology a pro
portionate sum.
The reason why compulsory church rates have
been abolished, and why the Irish Protestant Church has been dis
established, is that a strong conviction has arisen amongst the
majority of thinkers, that it is morally wrong for the State to
arrogate to itself the power of choosing a religion for the people,
inasmuch as this is a matter in which each man’s own con
science and intellect should be his guides.
But if religion is
so left to the conscience and intellect of individuals, no one can,
without violation of the principle of such an arrangement, be
compelled to pay in any shape towards the support of a multiplicity
of theologies differing from his own.
That everybody should be
called upon to support everybody else’s creed, is not a doctrine of
liberty, but a proposal of despotism, and it is none the better
because the compulsory aid is to take effect in one building called
a school, instead of in another called a church.
No one who
admits the principle which led to the disestablishment of the
Irish Church, can dispute the position taken by the Boman
Catholics, that the State ought to do for them, in proportion to
their numbers, what it does in the way of benefit for other religious
bodies ; and if all the theological sects were equally endowed for
educational purposes, the State would still have to meet the claims
of secularists, and of those who decline to register themselves
under any denominational formula.
When we consider the fact
admitted by all sects, that great masses of the working class,
especially in large towns, are in this position, the magnitude of this
question becomes apparent; and if we pass from masses of men to
distinguished individuals, the names will at once occur to our
minds of philosophers standing high in various departments of
scientific enquiry, who do not belong to any existing church.
Hitherto the denominational system, has not been associated with
any direct legislative compulsion to attend the schools; but the
country is obviously tending to the belief that the State must pro
�173
tect and safeguard the right of the child to education, even when
the parent desires to keep it away from instruction. Compulsory
education cannot be justly resorted to, unless religious liberty, that
is, perfect freedom upon speculative questions—is well protected
from aggression. Religious liberty is based upon the right of
private judgment, while the denominational teaching of the young
is intended to produce a strong bias, in favour of what those who
employ it believe to be true. In chemistry or astronomy, a pro
fessor does not hesitate to tell his pupils frankly, that upon certain
questions the opinions of men of learning differ, nor does he
shrink from explaining the grounds upon which diverging or con
tradictory theories are held ; but would any denominational school
master be allowed to show why historical critics, philological
scholars, or geologists, doubted or denied the particular propositions
he was paid to teach? Those who, upon grounds of critical
inquiry, reject the propositions of orthodoxy, ought not to be parties
towards compelling the orthodox to support their heresy in the
schoolroom; and if Dean Close, for example, cannot be justly
deprived of his shillings or pounds for an institute in which
Huxley or Tyndall might lecture, ought they or their followers to
be mulcted for a kind of education in which their labours are
spoken of in the following terms :—“ There was no question that
there is in the present day an evil spirit of the ‘ bottomless pit ’
rising up among us, poisoning God’s truth, poisoning the faith of
thousands, and turning them away from godliness ; and he was
bound to say he laid a large portion of it at the door of science.
Did not philosophers at the present day, dig out of the bowels
of the earth evidences against God ? Did they not seek in the
heavens, in nations, and in languages, every means to shake our faith
in the Bible? How fearful and how humbling a thing it was, that
there were those who would venture to overturn the whole Bible
narrative of the creation of man, which involved man’s salvation
by Christ, and would prefer any dream, however foolish or vain, to
the faithful testimony of God respecting the origin of our species f
He was bold to say that in all the dreams of Hindoos, and all the
false religions corrupted, degraded, and ridiculous—that were ever
amusing among the Pagans, there were none so frivolous and childish
�174
as those, unto which the science of the present day had reduced our
scientific men.” This passage is not quoted for the pleasure of
raising a laugh at its absurdity, but because the learned ecclesiastic
who uttered it is, to speak in natural history phraseology, a
remarkably fine specimen of a species, considerable in numbers and
tolerably wide in the area of its distribution. All the members of
this religious species would have a right, under the denominational
system, to State aid in frightening their pupils with bug-a-boo
pictures of the horrors of science, and the wickedness of scientific
men. It may be said, that a “ conscience clause” would be a suf
ficient protection against theological aggression, but this is emphati
cally contradicted by facts. At a recent Conference of the Wesleyans,
a body which carefully avoids separating itself from the Estab
lished Church, much complaint was made of the persecution to
which Wesleyan children were subjected at National Schools, on
account of their attending the Sunday schools of the Chapel
instead of those of the Church ; and where a school was founded upon
a theological basis, children who were not subjected to its theological
teachings, would occupy a position inferior to those who were. The
denominational system directly tends to brand, with the stigma of
inferiority children and their parents who do not belong to the most
influential sect of the locality. In Ireland the Protestant child
would be subjected to this injury in the Romish school, if he attended
one, on account of there being no other in the neighbourhood; and in
other places the children of Romanists, Jews, and Dissenters in
general, would come under the ban. In rural districts of England
the social distinction between pupils of the British, and pupils of
the National Schools, is painfully apparent. The park of the lord
or squire receives the little Nationals at their annual holiday, and
“ county families” assist at their cricket or kiss-in-the-ring. The
small “ Britishers” may look through the palings, but as they did
not learn the right catechism, they must not enjoy the fun. The
■Government, as the guardian of political and social interests, is
bound, upon the principles of civil and religious liberty, to permit
nothing, that can encourage odious distinctions in any school that it
-supports. So long as education was left’to voluntaryism, there was
some excuse for aiding sectarian schools; but to have made that
�175
system approximately fair, secular schools should have had equal
rights with denominational establishments. Voluntaryism has been
found insufficient in supplying school accommodation, and it is
generally believed that attendance at some school should be made
compulsory; and would it not inflict a great wrong upon the people,
if they were obliged to send their children to schools in which, in
any shape or way, a theological test was applied to discriminate and
separate the beloved sheep of any orthodoxy, from the suspected
goats of any heresy ? In large towns, schools of all kinds, from
Romanist to secular, would be established, and there would be con
siderable choice ; but in smaller places much hardship could not
fail to occur. Large-minded reformers, anxious for human brother
hood, and wishing that the progress we are making towards de
mocracy, should be accompanied by circumstances of safety to society,
and good-will amongst men, desire that the schoolroom should be
free from envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness. The honours of
that place should go exclusively to merit of conduct, and proficiency
of study ; no child should be made ashamed or uncomfortable on
account of his father’s opinions, or lack of opinions, on subjects of
theological speculation; no child should imbibe lessons of sectarian
hatred, or be encouraged to think himself better than another child,
because he had been taught something different about creed or
•catechism. Let voluntaryism provide all the theological divisions
it believes to be usefid, and keep them in their right place ; let the
State deal with a larger question of human culture, adapted to the
people as a whole.
FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
Captain Maxse, R.N., read a paper, of which the following
is an abstract, on “Free and Compulsory Elementary Education.”
He commenced by saying that he was the representative of a
branch which was in course of formation in South Hants, to
■co-operate with the League; and he had long been an advocate
•of compulsory gratuitous elementary education. He proceeded:
First, I should like to say a word or two about the term
secular, as applied to the movement. In its best sense, I myself,
am prepared to accept this designation of—what I hope, gentle
�176
men of Birmingham, you will allow me now to call—our scheme :
in its ignoble sense, as implying irreverence, or gross worldliness, I
utterly repudiate it. If by “ secular” is meant of this world, as in
contrast to another one, I reply, that what is of this world is of
God, and I denounce as mischievous and unwarrantable the arbi
trary distinction, that an attempt is made to establish between the
spiritual and the earthly. I believe that it is intended, provided
we are worthy of the intention, that human nature shall be elevated
in this world ; and that it depends entirely upon ourselves whether
we, the English, are to assist in this elevation, or are to be pushed
aside by a stronger race, better fitted for progress than we, more
resolute to fulfil the nobler aspirations of human nature. I wish to
see children, taught, first to live, as the most religious duty that they
can discharge, taught to live in this world for the ennobling of
themselves and others, taught that the greater portion of human
misery is the result of human error, taught that we can be better if
we try to be better with courage, with faith, and with inflexible
honesty. I believe there is little hope for us in life until we place
morality upon a solid basis; until we learn that it is best to be good for
its own sake; until we learn that evil, as evil, is the cause of misery
to ourselves and others, and realize (I fortify myself by a quotation
from Locke) that “ To love truth for truth’s sake is the principal
part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all
virtues.” The object of this League is simply to teach the “ com
prehensible” to all neglected children ; to save them from despair,
degradation, and death, by placing about every child some moral
influence, giving them the opportunity of distinguishing between
right and wrong, and by securing to all persons in the realm the
additional means of livelihood which, in a civilized community, is
represented by familiarity -with letters and numbers. A movement
having such an object as this, I can only regard as a profoundly
religious one. In the interest of religion, not less than in the interest
of the national cause we advocate, there is but one course to adopt,
(and this course is a sorrowful course for some, but they must
remember we are pressed to it by a still more sorrowful condition;)
it is, to stand respectfully aside from Bible reading, not less than
from the use of the Catechism. Nevertheless, I desire myself to
�177
see some reverential attitude on the part of State schools, in rela
tion to the Unknown Power, and I believe this might be fulfilled
by drawing up a daily prayer, which would satisfy every shade of
religious opinion. If, however, this cannot be done, I am ready to
acknowledge the necessity of confining ourselves strictly to secular
education. And how much this means ! It means giving sight to
the blind, and limbs to the maimed. I hold, myself, that whoever
is permitted to grow up, without having had the opportunity of
learning to read and write, has a direct grievance, not only against
his parents, but also against the State. “ In a civilized community
reading and writing may be regarded as supplementary senses.
Not a few of us would hesitate, if the alternative wore suddenly
presented of losing a sense, such as the sense of hearing, or of
losing the faculty of reading. Who is there among us, who would
assume the responsibility of destroying a sense? Is there much
less in neglecting to provide for the liberation of a faculty, mani
festly equal to it in value ? It should never be forgotten that the
higher our civilization, the greater becomes our responsibility to
wards the poor. Civilization means luxury, comfort, and security
for all of us ; but, I fear, only rigour for those who have to provide
the necessaries of life. The advantage of quitting a natural state
is great, for those who are able to command food-—hardly so for those
who have to obtain it. Therefore, the Government of a civilized
State assumes, or should assume, a responsibility towards the indi
gent, in direct proportion to the degree of its civilization. It is for
those responsible—for those who, in a free country, frame public
opinion—to see that the disadvantage the poor are placed under by
civilization, is reduced to a minimum • and the least acknowledgment
of this duty is to provide for, and secure the liberation of what I
have called the supplementary senses. This does not in the least im
ply that the poor man or labourer is to be given learning, the latter
is for himself to achieve; he is to receive only the instrument to it, to
be given his hearing, not to be provided with music. I hardly
think myself that we have the right to protect property, if we do
not make known to everyone the reason why property should be
sacred, and this can only be done through education. It seems to
me that, as we advance in civilization, the one anxious problem we
M
�178
have to deal with is, how to preserve the food-getting condition of
the poor. A speaker at the Social Science Congress, the other day,
said that the misery with which we are surrounded is not the result
of ignorance, but is the result of poverty. And is not ignorance
one of the causes of poverty—one of the main causes ? It is owing
to ignorance that the labour-market is overstocked. The men who
are unable to read and write, are prohibited from entering any
calling but that of mere manual labour. How often do we hear it
said of some good agricultural labourer “ The worst of it is, he is
no scholarthe scholarly attainment in request being, perhaps,
to decipher an invoice of drain pipes, or sum up the productions of
a dairy. I am quite aware of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s views on the
subject of education, and I have listened respectfully to Mr. Faw
cett’s objection to free education as relieving the parents of proper
responsibility. Nevertheless, I remain an advocate of gratuitous
education. I do not believe that the majority of the parents we
require to reach are in a position to exercise responsibility. I
know that Mr. Fawcett would leave power to school managers to
supply education gratis, when the parents are destitute and unable
to pay, on much the same principle as food is supplied under the
poor-law; hut I cannot help thinking that there would be some
invidious distinction arising from this system ; the establishment of
a class that would be termed a pauper class, of which all callous
and improvident parents, would avail themselves at the expense of
the provident. I have never advocated myself the State’s providing,
free, more than elementary education. I believe that directly
parents are in a position to afford the indulgence of feeling respon
sibility, on the educational head, they will remove their children
from the public to the private and higher school. My experience
tells me that the responsibility of education is now evaded by
parents who can afford to educate their children. I constantly find
parents availing themselves of “ National School” education at the
(to them) nominal expense of Id. or 2d. per week, which school is
mainly supported by others, not for them, but for the very poor.
I would do nothing to weaken the responsibility that should exist
on the part of parents to their children. I recognise the force of
the argument, that parents should not. summon beings into the
�179
world without being able to provide for them, and I by no means
desire to see the individual gradually perish in the State; but we
must not demand too much, we must not insist on an ideal con
ception of parental duty for those who have not the means, or the
prospect of the means, of fulfilling it. To do so, would, in my opinion,
afford but too ready an excuse for society to return to its fatal
slumber. I would add, that the right to be instructed in the lan
guage of civilization offers the opportunity, which must be seized,
of supplying higher teaching. We can hardly teach how to read
and write, without imparting some rudimentary knowledge, without
teaching, I am happy to think, some of the facts of the universe,
and expounding reverentially some of the miracles of nature that
are ever at hand, whether exemplified in the anatomy of a tree
leaf, or expressed in the infinite immensity of the heavens. Finally,
we have the opportunity of awakening the conscience to a sense of
right and wrong. This briefly represents my idea of education for
the people. Call the process secular if you like, call it undenomi
national if you please—call it what you will—it must remain
neither more nor less, than noble and exalting. Perhaps you will
let me here offer a word or two upon my own experience, of the
effect of a compulsory education proposal among working men; it
will serve to supplement the larger experience of Mr. Applegarth.
I was one of the candidates at the general election for the represen
tation of Southampton, a town, as you are aware, far south. My
own pet subject, at every meeting, and upon every possible
occasion during a long house-to-house canvass was, not the “ glo
rious principles of our noble constitution,” but compulsory educa
tion. I do not believe the idea had ever been broached before,
certainly it had never been prominently broached before. It
was not long after I had commenced, that one or two leaders of
the party, who were conversant with the working class feeling,
were saying to me, “ Go on speaking about education, it takes
wonderfully; I should stick to that ideaand so on. I always
felt myself, that I struck a truly popular chord; the response
upon this subject was more fevent than upon any other. The
simple explanation is, that the working classes have common
sense, and that we have only to appeal to this on subjects which
concern them, to secure ultimately their hearty allegiance.
�180
DISCUSSION.
Mr. Edmond Beales, of London, most heartily congratulated
the President and all the Council of the League—if that congratu
lation was of any value—upon their admirable commencement of
the great work which they had set themselves to accomplish. The
fundamental principle of the League appeared to bo this, that every
one of those two millions of children, now without instruction,
should be educated, and that the frightful state of things which
they now saw, in the punishment of persons for the violation of
laws which they had never been taught to know or respect, should
cease to exist. The fruitful evils now resulting from the fact of so
many children being uneducated, was a shame and a disgrace to any
Christian country. The principle of the League was, that their
system, supported as it would be, partly by Government grants, and
partly by local rates, should be free and wholly unsectarian, as
it necessarily must be. He held that Christian morality was
the highest of all morality ; that no philosophy which ever
existed, could find an adequate substitute for it, and that the
Gospel of Christ was the best possible means of making a man
wise, just, honest, and virtuous. Still, he could never for the
life of him understand, how to teach a child to read and write, to
calculate, to instruct him in the elements of science, and in all
that was necessary for the faithful discharge of his after profes
sion or occupation, could make that child the less a good Christian.
He entirely agreed with Mr. Mundella, that all truth was holy; and
also with the principles laid down in the paper of the Hon. Auberon
Herbert; for whilst he conceived it to be the duty of the State to
assist in the education of the country, he also considered it the
duty of the State, not to interfere with the consciences or religious
principles of the parents. Still, no parent, whether Churchman,
Nonconformist, or Roman Catholic, should be allowed to exclude
his children from education simply because in unsectarian schools,
if they were established, there was not taught the special doc
trines of his faith. As he understood it, the League did not intend
to exclude the consideration of religion, or of the Bible from the
schools, nor to interfere at all with the existing d on om in ati on al
�181
systemj but what it was prepared to enforce at all times, and under
all circumstances, was, that the State must do its duty, and not
interfere with the freedom of religious conviction; that the parent
must do his duty, and not allow religious conviction to interfere
with the education which the State declared was necessary, to make
his child a good, upright, and honest citizen. Such a system
woidd bring about greater concord, and greater harmony between all
classes of society. No longer would there be antagonism and dis
union amongst them ; there would be one bond of mutual respect,
good-will, kindness, and social attachment pervading, interlacing,
and knitting together the whole national body, whilst the
individual welfare of each part of the body, would be promoted
and developed.
The Hon. G-. Brodrick : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—
In following Mr. Beales, as I have been invited to do, and heartily
supporting his views, I do not feel competent to speak from any
personal experience of the practical details of school management,
but I am desirous to add my testimony to the broad principle of
national unsectarian education, inasmuch as there is no one of our
principles in which I more cordially concur. This principle, as we
have been reminded, gives offence to some. I observed the other
day, that Sir Stafford Northcote, who is a good friend to education^
said at Exeter that he heartily wished the words “ sectarian ” and
“ unsectarian ” had never been imported into this subject. I partly
agree with him, and yet I differ from him; for he dislikes the word,,
and I dislike the thing. Now, there is one objection to which
reference, I think, has not been made to-day, but which I believe
to be very widely prevalent. I mean the objection that some five
and twenty years ago a kind of compact, as it has been called, was
made between the State and the religious bodies of this country,
and that we are, as it were, morally bound to carry out the spirit of
that compact. I might, and do, reply, that we arc not proposing
to disendow denominational education, that we are not proposing
to disestablish it, that we are not even proposing to supersede it,
but only to supplement it. But I go further, and I must say, I
should like to know when the compact was made, by whom it was
made, and what were its terms. And even supposing any such
�182
compact to have been made, I want to know who were the parties
to it. Were yon and I—those bf us, at least, who are less than
fifty years old, and perhaps at that very time were under education
—were you and I parties to it ? Were those who are children, who
are now growing up in ignorance and vice, to be the inmates of
our woikliouses and our gaols, were these children, then unborn,
parties to the compact ? Were the working classes, then excluded
from the franchise, but now admitted to it, and who must
ultimately guide and govern the policy of the country, were they
parties to it ? And if not, what force is there in alleging the
existence of an imaginary compact, made a generation ago ? There
is one other objection, to which reference has frequently been made,
to unsectarian education, and that is, the religious objection. On
that I can only say, I entirely adopt what has fallen from so many
speakers. We leave untouched the influence of the church and
the chapel, we leave untouched the influence of home, we leave
untouched the influence of Sunday schools; we leave it in the dis
cretion of the managers or school committee, as the Chairman has
explained, to admit the teaching, the dogmatic teaching, of religion
out of school hours, and, if they think proper, to allow the reading
of the Scriptures, without note or comment, even during school hours.
Then, I ask—and this is the root of the matter—what is the religion
which we are said to sacrifice ? Not the practical religion of every
day life ; not the sublime and simple religion of the Gospel; not the
pure and undefiled religion of St. James, who teaches us to visit
the fatherless and the widows in their affliction; not the religion
of St. Paul, which embraces all things true and all things pure, and
all things lovely and honest and of good report; but the religion of
creeds and articles and formularies, the religion of dogmatic
theology,—the parent of the persecution which has been the re
proach of Christianity ; the religion which boasts, not of its power
of including, but of its power to exclude; the religion which at
this moment contributes to uphold caste and to prevent the growth
of national unity in this country, and which is the main obstacle to
the moral union of Christendom.
Mr. Follett Osler : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—I
feel considerable hesitation, in undertaking to say a few words on
�183
the present occasion, but having been asked to address you, I have
jotted down a few remarks which have occurred to me, connected with
the recent journey I have made to America. Though I, in common
with a large portion of our countrymen, have long felt it most de
sirable that education should be extended throughout this realm,
so as to render it truly national, I never was so strongly impressed
with the importance of this, as after a tour I made last autumn in
the United States. In taking this journey I had no particular
object in view, beyond the desire to see and learn all I could of the
country, its people and institutions ; to accomplish which, I visited
most of the Northern States, from the Atlantic to the Rocky
Mountains. But it is not possible for anyone to travel in that
country at all observantly, without being struck by the great intel
ligence of the mass of the people. Even in the country districts
this is as noticeable as in the towns. So striking was this appa
rently universal education, that I was involuntarily led to inquire
into the system, and to visit the schools that produced such good
results. Accordingly, I devoted some time to that object, feeling
more strongly than I had ever done before, the pressing importance
of real national education, and that it was one of the first subjects
to which our Legislature should direct them attention. The question
that is of most interest and importance to us at the present moment
is, whether the main features of the system which has been so suc
cessfully carried out in the United States, may not be applicable to
this country. Some persons take alarm at the word “ America,”
and seem afraid lest we should denationalize our people ; but surely,
the adoption of a broad and extended scheme of national education,
be it based on the system adopted in the United States, or Prussia,
or of any other nation, or on the systems of all combined, does
not make us adopt, or desire to adopt, the mode cf government or
the political institutions of any of those countries ; though the
recent changes in our political institutions may render national
education not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. But, in
addition to any political considerations, it is necessary that our ar
tisans should be placed in a position, to enable us to compete with
those nations that, I regret to say, have left us far behind with re
gard to the education of the people. I contend that education, to
�184
be national, that is, universal, must be free. A large portion of
the population cannot pay; and if some are to do so, it will be ne
cessary to decide who are not. No arbitrary amount of wages can
settle it. A man with one child, and earning 20s. a-week, may be
richer than another earning 30s. or 40s. a-week, who has a number
of children. Then, as to those who can pay—is the sum to be uni
form, or is it to be graduated according to the means of the pupil’s
parents ? The subject becomes more complicated and difficult, the
deeper we go into it. Again, if some schools are free, and others
demand a fee, a class feeling will be provoked; for among artisans
there is an honourable pride, as great as among the wealthier members
of the community, and a distinction will cause the schools, where no
payment is made, to be regarded as pauper or charity schools. The
difficulties attending payment are so great, and the advantages of
having education free are so manifest to my mind, that I am sur
prised there should be any hesitation as to the course this country
should adopt. When in Philadelphia, I had some interesting con
versation on the subject with Mr. Shippen, the excellent President
of the Board of Controllers of the Public Schools of Philadelphia,
who strongly advises our schools being altogether free. Mr. Osler
here read the following letter from Mr. Shippen :—
“ Philadelphia, June 18th, 1869.
“ S.E. Cor. 6th and Walnut Streets.
“ Mr. Follett Osler,
Dear Sir, —Your favour of June 5tli is received. I am pleased to
accede to your wishes, and mail with this, six copies of my address, which
please use to your best advantage.
“The experience of all educators and legislators in this country, con
firms me in my judgment of the utter uselessness of legislation for classes in
the public schools. We built our system upon poor laws—pauper laws. We
practically divided our people into classes, and just so long as these founda
tions lasted, was the system a positive failure. This is not only the experience
in Pennsylvania, but of every other State which adopted the same discrimi
nating principles. I have studied this subject well, have given it the fifteen
years of my official connection with our public schools. I have remarked to
Lord Amberley, and other inquiring English gentlemen who have visited our
schools, that if England, in establishing her national school system, fell into
the grave error into which we fell, the system would in the end be a failure,
and the money laid out upon it would be expended with but trifling advantage.
�185
“Establish your schools ‘ for every child that draws the breath of life
within your borders.’ The system need not be compulsory, but open. You
will be met at the threshold with the objection that the lower class will de
moralize the higher ; that the morals of the lower class will contaminate the
higher. This is a dangerous and most fearful error. My experience does not
prove it. If there be any rule on the subject, it is the very reverse. The
poor girl or boy is not less virtuous than the rich. The rich have the means
to indulge in vice, while the poor have none. I candidly tell you that in
placing my children at school, I would infinitely prefer placing them in public
schools than private schools, and, in doing so, I would thus consult the better
their moral, spiritual, and scholastic welfare. So far as social relations are
concerned, I can always regulate this myself. The school association is only
an association of school hours. It need not be otherwise. England must
come to our open national system sooner or later, and, I trust, will avail itself
of our experience at the outset, and not wait to be taught her error. I take
a deep interest in the cause everywhere, and shall ever be happy to lend a
helping hand.
“ Very respectfully yours,
“Edward Shippen.”
I would only wish further to say, that I think we have been looking
too much on the dense dark spots of ignorance, among the poorer
children, and have not sufficiently borne in mind that we are now
contemplating a great national system of education to embrace all
classes. As these dark spots get lighter, we shall see more clearly
that there are very dark shades in higher grades, and shall become
more sensible that the whole system must be efficiently worked out
on one broad plan. I should like it to be possible for a child to
enter into the lowest class, and gradually progress to the highest
education that can be obtained in this country. I mention this
because a desire has been expressed by some persons to have schools
for the working classes only, to give them an elementary education,
and when they have reached a certain grade say, “ You are going to
be artisans, what need for anything further ?” I think all should
be on one system of general education, embracing even the higher
departments of knowledge ; so that while all go cn together, each
pupil may be able, as he advances, to study such special subjects as
his abilities or the circumstances of his case may render advisable.
A Gentleman here asked that the sense of the meeting might
be taken, as to the proposing of a resolution. He said the London
�18G
and other branches should be informed,what were the actual inten
tions of the League, and what was the meaning of “ unsectarian.”
The Chairman : We shall, at half-past seven, have a meeting in
the Town Hall, and it was intended that we should finish our pro
ceedings to-day. We have only eight minutes left, and the question
is, shall we enter into a discussion upon a resolution about which
we have heard nothing, or hear the three gentlemen who yet have
to speak? But let me tell you what the resolution is. When,
yesterday morning, I opened the proceedings of the Conference, I
said there had been a difficulty in some people’s minds as to the
meaning of the word “ unsectarian,” and I then proceeded to give
an explanation or definition of the meaning. Now, it would appear
that to some gentlemen’s minds that definition was not sufficiently
clear. Therefore, what they desire to do is this, to move a reso
lution, which resolution shall make clear what I failed to make clear
yesterday morning. Now, I have to observe that I have had two
distinct resolutions on that very same subject, and now another
gentleman wishes to draw up a resolution. In my opinion, not
one of those resolutions is any more clear than my definition—
in fact, not so clear. And further, if those three resolutions are put
to the meeting, we have no sort of confidence that there will not be
half-a-dozen more ; and my opinion is, that of necessity there will
be some more, though I do not know how many. What are we to
do under these circumstances ? The Provisional Committee specially
decided that there should be no resolutions whatever taken, and the
order of proceeding having been fixed, the question that arises in
my mind is, whether, as Chairman, I am to observe the order of
proceeding pre-arranged, or whether I am to open up, at the request
of one or two gentlemen—-whose object is certainly admirable—a
discussion, the length of which we really cannot foresee. What I
might do is this : I might put it to the meeting whether or not such
a discussion should be entered into. But I am inclined to think,
on consideration, that the meeting would rather that the Chairman
should perform his own duty, and decide the question for them.
However, I have been asked this question, which will take only
one minute to answer, and probably the answer to this question will
meet all that is desired in these resolutions. The Hon. Auberon
�187
Herbert asks me, 11 What is unsectarian education 1 Is it education
excluding all dogmatic and theological teaching, or creeds, or cate
chisms?” I feel authorized, on behalf of the Provisional Com
mittee, to say yes. He further asks, “ Whether the scheme
of the League necessarily excludes from the national rate schools,
the Bible, without note or comment 2” And I say, what I said
yesterday morning, that it does not; that that, is to be left to the
decision of the school committee, who will be the representatives
of the parents of the children.
The Eev. Septimus Hansard : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and
gentlemen,—I have to congratulate you on the perfect unanimity
on the general object of this League, which has pervaded these
meetings ; and it is a matter of considerable congratulation to
myself, as a clergyman of the Church of England, to find on this
platform, engaged in the same work, clergymen of different
denominations, and men who differ from me as widely as my friend
Mr. Holyoake does. It is a matter of congratulation to me to find
that in the speech which Mr. Holyoake made on this subject, on
which we all feel so strongly in common, he spoke in the language
of what I may strictly call the deepest piety. I have, as some of
you know, been now occupied over twenty years, in labouring
among the working populations of London ; and I do assure you,
that much as is the satisfaction, that all who, like myself, are
interested in education, must have in seeing the success of the
different educational works around them, nothing is more painful
than to see that there is still a residuum of savagery, and brutality
among the humbler classes of our neighbours. That is a blot
on our common Christianity, and a shame to us all. Let us take
it to heart, and see if we cannot combine to remedy it, putting
aside the special doctrines which distinguish us one from another,
and in a common cause, working for the welfare of those miserable
and neglected ones all around us. What a disgrace it is to us, who
boast of the Christian civilization of England, who are so proud,
and bragging about our Protestant truth, and about the light of
the Gospel shining on us, as we hear from every platform and
pidpit, to know that in these last few years we have been obliged
to invent a new name in the English language—“the rouyfe”—to
�188
■express the miserable condition of those who live in the back
streets of our large towns. Whenever you use that term, as
applied to the inhabitants of our back streets, you are using a
term which, however true it may he in its application, should
bring home a lesson to you, and a sense of disgrace to us all, that,
as Englishmen, such beings should live among us. Therefore, I
should like to say a few words to disarm the prejudices of those
who, I think, are at one with us, but who as yet hesitate about
joining us. It is a matter of regret, to find absent from the list of
those who have joined the League, a very large number of laymen,
Members of Parliament, and clergymen, who, from their liberal
principles, well known and established, might be expected to be with
us. I believe they are a little frightened—naturally enough—
because our movement is a new one, and because, as you know,
there is at the bottom of every Englishman a stratum of Toryism
which it takes a good deal to knock out of him; and because I
think there has been a great deal of misapprehension about these
very untoward expressions, “ secular,” and “ unsectarian.” I will
not detain you with an exposition of my opinions, but I would say
to all those who are able to join the League, “Deal as tenderly as
you can with religious people who have an objection to your
League; no scruples have more demand on your respect than
religious scruples, and I am quite sure the supporters and
■originators of the League, woifld not desire to say one word
which would express contempt to those who differ from us
in religious opinions.” But on the other hand, I would call
on clergymen of all denominations, to bear in mind that if schools
for primary education become an established fact, more religious
influence will be thrown into the hands of those, who wish to give
religious teaching, than they possess now. I am perfectly con
vinced that if you have a good school, managed without any special
religious teaching whatever, and if, as I presume, you must and
ought to allow the clergymen and dissenting minister, at the
recorded wish of the parents of the children, at some stated time,
to give religious education or instruction to those children, the
religious teachers will have infinitely more power, more real vital
power, of bringing home to the hearts of the children the words and
�189
example of their master, Christ, than they ever had by the system
that now prevails, of deputing to the schoolmaster the perfunctory
lesson which we know is given in most of our schools. To give
you an instance of what I mean, I know a clergyman of a certain
district in London, who collects together at certain times, once a
month, for two hours, any children of any school in his large
parish, who may choose to come into the church to be educated in
the Bible and Catechism; and the church is crowded with
volunteer children, who come and sit there with their minds as
attentive as grown-up persons, answering the questions that are
put, and evidently having those lessons brought home to the
practice of their daily life, in such a manner as is not done in
schools. A very High Churchman and Ritualist told me that he
believed it was the right way of giving education ; and I believe
instruction must be so given under the system we are advocating
I think the objection that will be made by the religious world
against that system, is an unnecessary bugbear, which I hope we
shall all do our best, when we talk to religious people, to remove,
by showing that we do not in the least wish to do away with
religious teaching, but simply to separate from it dogmatic teaching.
The Rev. H. W. Crosskey : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and
gentlemen, I rise for the purpose of mentioning one or two facts
which have not been alluded to at this Conference. Although re
ferences have been made to Saxony and America, there have been no
allusions to the educational system of Scotland, one or two facts
connected with which, I think, will interest the Conference as bearing
on the practical working of the subject. In the first place, I hold
that this so-called religious, or, rather, most irreligious, difficulty is
a thing that vanishes before the logic of practical facts. It disappears
entirely in the education of our own children. In ’Scotland, a
country that has not a reputation foi liberality, out of 12,572
children of Catholic laity, 7,343 have attended for many years
without compulsion the Protestant schools, in which freedom of
conscience is permitted. The Catholic laity have had no objection
to send their children to the schools, but now a cry is being raised
against them by the priests, and in both Ireland and Scotland an
attempt will be made to secure the denominational system. But
�*
190
here is the fact, directly and distinctly proving that if the laity are
left free to act, if the priest is told that he must not interfere with
the liberty of the subject, and the Government is firm, there can
be no practical difficidty in the matter. Now for another point,
touching the character of the schools. I would strongly protest
against the idea of striving to make the schools merely working
class schools. There is a free road open in Scotland from the public
schools to the Universities. Last year, I saw in the Highlands a
gipsy encampment pitched close to the school house, and a gipsy
bad sent his large family of children to school, with the children of
the farmers. Last year, also, a friend, shooting in the Highlands,
had for a gillie a youth, who in this way earned the money to pay
for his education at the University in the winter. In another case,
a shepherd was found reading a Greek author on his sick bed for
his amusement. I think it is perfectly possible to have national
schools, to which we can send all the children of the community. I
am ashamed to visit the school where my own children are,
and see that they there can get a knowledge of languages
and sciences; and then go to schools in this town, and see,
large branches of knowledge being kept back, that the children’s
minds are limited and confined, that they are taught only
rudimentary things, and that there is no chance of their obtaining
the liberal culture which we require for our own children. I would
express to this meeting a most thorough satisfaction with the
explanation made by Mr. Dixon, of the views and intentions of the
League. I think it should go forth, that while we do not in any
way wish to offend the feelings or injure the interests of the great
religious bodies of this country; while we are prepared to give the
freest scope to every sect and party to carry out its own ends and
aims in charity and peace, we do propose that the instruction of the
common school shall be confined to matters of common culture, and
that we do this for the sake of religion. We believe that religion
is injured by being made a task within the school. We are of
opinion that in the quiet atmosphere of home, in the sanctity of
those places where children are brought together apart from the
noise and tumult of their daily school-life, the great seeds of religion
ought to be sown • that religion is not a technical thing, to be
�191
taught by rule, but a loving influence, a power to thrill the spirit
within them. The education which we propose to give would be
favourable to religion, because if we excite the religious feelings,
without Culture, we have superstition. Who is there would not
rather plead for his Gospel to an educated than to an ignorant
man ? I will appeal to the clergy of the country whether, if they
had intelligent men and women to address, the divineness of the
Gospel ought not to be shown in the warmer enthusiasm of its
reception 1 It is a poor and weak timidity that distrusts the power
of an educated people. I hail this meeting with satisfaction. Its
object is the greatest cause we can engage in, and it has to me the
sanctity of an apostolic work. The future of our country depends
on it. A large and liberal culture will the better enable a man to
perform the humblest tasks of life, while the more cultivated the
mind, the larger the knowledge of the constitution and history of
the world, the greater will be the progress of morality and religion;
and our countrymen, instead of growing up mere devotees of sec
tarian interests, narrow in mind and distrustful of each other, will
become free men in the noblest sense, able to give an intelligent
reason for their faith, and to exercise a wide charity to their
brethren. The only boundary we can place to this movement, is
to furnish every child born within this kingdom with fair oppor
tunities for cultivating all the faculties God has given it.
Rev. Mr. Caldecott : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, I
will not detain the meeting by offering any arguments on the ques
tion of unsectarian education. That some such system is accepted
by you I suppose, or else why are we here to-day ? And some such
system I believe to be in a very fair way to be accepted by the
country. What I wish to do is to congratulate the members of
this League on the great advance that has been made in public
feeling of late as regards this matter. On all hands, whatever lan
guage may be held, the principle of a denominational system of
education is virtually abandoned. It is true that gentlemen seek
to cover their concessions, and to conceal their retreat under a mist
of words about compromises and conscience clauses. But, sir, the
day for conscience clauses has gone by. It is too late in England,
in the year 1869, to attempt, in a system of national education, to
�192
brand with a ticket the children of any creed as inferior to their
fellows of another creed. There is at this moment but a shadow of
a shade, that separates the adherents of the denominational principle
of education from ourselves. They insist upon it that some reli
gious teaching shall be given to all children, provided that the
parents of those children do not object to it. We, on the other
hand, would be glad that they, or any of them, should teach their
system of religion to any child, provided that his parents desire it.
At the last Social Science Meeting, in Bristol, this question was
very fully discussed; papers were read and speeches were made
upon it, and various suggestions were offered both in public and in
private. Speaker after speaker insisted upon the necessity of main
taining religious—that is to say, denominational—education ; but
as not one of those gentlemen condescended to leave his theories
behind and to come to the plain practical question, what was the
religious teaching that he was prepared to give, the whole fabric of
their schemes melted away. There was one gentleman who did
maintain that there can be no religion, there can be no morality,
there can be no goodness, that is not based on some creed or some
catechism; but I heard no one else in the meeting rise to support
that view. There was another gentleman who insisted that in all
State Schools, all children should be regularly instructed and pe
riodically examined in the main principles of Christianity; but
that gentleman did not explain to us what he himself conceived
those main principles to be, nor did he give the slightest indication
what is to be the authority that is to determine them. With the
great mass of practical speakers on this point, both in public and
in private, there seemed to be one thing agreed, that they would be
perfectly satisfied with the advocacy of the undenominational prin
ciple, if you would only allow, during some time, in the day a portion
of Scripture to be read to the pupils without interpretation, without
question, and without comment of any kind, merely as a recognition
of religion. Well, sir, I cannot help thinking it is something like
an abuse of words to dignify such a scanty scrap as this, with
the name of religious education. Yes, and when the advo
cates of denominational principle have come to this, we may fairly
congratulate ourselves on having found the vanishing point of the
�193
denominational system. The fact is, the time is ripe for the intro
duction of this League among the friends of denominationalism. I
believe there is really but one demand on which they seriously
insist; that demand is, that there shall be some recognition in
education of some religious principle or other. It is not that these
gentlemen love denominationalism for itself—far from it. They
fear that if you exclude denominationalism from the schools, you
will exclude religion from education. But surely the remarks you
have heard from Mr. Hansard, will show you their fears are vain.
The fact is, that at the basis of all our systems, the common foun
dation on which they, every one of them, rest, there are two reli
gious principles upon which we are all agreed, because God has
written those principles in the heart of every one of us ; they are
the principles upon which we recognize God’s love to us, and our
duty to our fellow men. Those are exactly the two principles
about which our neglected childhood knows nothing, and has never*
even heard. Those are exactly the principles which in the schools
to be founded, I hope, under the auspices of this League, every
child will be taught, without variance or without distinction.
Every child must be taught them, for there can be no teaching
given with respect to God’s works in God’s world, which does not
assume and develop them. These principles are the only principles
which the State, as a State, can teach in religion, because they are
the only principles in religion that all men, whatever may he their
creeds, will alike accept. I know it will be said that this is not
enough—that something more is required. Something more is re
quired, and in God’s name Jet something more be given. But the
State cannot give it. There are special voluntary associations whose
duty, whose right, whose delight it will be to give to their children
this something more ; for the question is, not whether denomina
tional schools shall cease to exist ■ the question is, upon what
material shall those denominational schools work ? Shall they
work upon young savages, or shall they work upon children who
liave already been taught to know something of civilization and
the truth ? Denominational schools can never cease to exist; they
will be everywhere, where men are .to be found who are fired with
zeal for God’s service, and are inspired with belief in God’s word.
N
�194
Surely it is the interest of every one of us, that the managers of
these schools should receive their pupils from the hands of the State,
already prepared for their instruction—decent, so to speak, and
clothed, and in their right minds; and should not have to hunt them
out, for themselves, through all the moral caverns, and the moral
tombs of our great cities, where at this moment they are hiding in
thousands, unclean and unclothed, and possessed by the legions of
evil spirits of wickedness and of crime.
On the motion of Professor Rogers, a vote of thanks was passed
to the Chairman.
The Chairman, after acknowledging the vote said : I have had
another question put to me—“If the school committee should
•decide that the Bible is to be read, must it be read without note or
•comment ?” My answer is, yes. Now, I wish to mention that a
gentlemen of the name of--------- , from London, writes and says
he is obliged to leave the meeting early, and he concludes by giving
fifty guineas to the funds of the League, and saying he has no doubt
whatever we shall have great support in London. And I am also
happy to say that we have an announcement of a donation of £50
from one, who calls himself a convert to our views by what he has
heard to-day. Now, in concluding our two days’ meeting, let me
say, on behalf of the Provisional Committee, that we have to give
•our warmest thanks to those gentlemen, who have come from a
distance to read papers, and to make those valuable speeches upon
this subject, which we have so much at heart. But let me repeat
what I said at first, that the League, as a League, is not responsible
for .what has been said ; each individual writer and speaker is alone
responsible, for the individual opinions that have been uttered. I
also thank, on behalf of the Committee, all those who have attended
at these meetings to support us ; and I fervently hope that the day
is not far distant when they will look back with honest pride upon
this meeting; and congratulate themselves that they took their part
in the inauguration of one of the most beneficial measures of this
-century.
The meeting then terminated.
�PUBLIC MEETING IN
THE
TOWN
HALL.
WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 13th, 1869.
A public meeting, convened by the Executive Committee of the
League, was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday evening. The
Mayor (Mr. Henry Holland) presided. The orchestra was filled
■chiefly by gentlemen, who had been present at the meetings in the
Assembly Room. The side galleries were given up to members of
the League and to ladies, and the floor and great gallery were
•occupied principally by working men.
The Mayor, in opening the proceedings, said the League wa8
founded for the purpose of obtaining the establishment of a national
system of education, which would ensure elementary instruction
to every child in the kingdom; and he trusted that it would not
•dissolve, until it should have accomplished its object, whatever
•difficulties might have to be encountered.
Mr. Dixon, M.P. (Chairman of the League) was received with
•cheers. He said: Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen—The resolution
which I have the honour to move is, “ That, in the opinion of thia
meeting, the scheme of the National Education League is the one
best adapted, to secure the education of every child in the country.”
The Manchester Education Aid Society, after a most minute inves
tigation, came to the conclusion that one half the children of the
working classes of that great town were uneducated, and that the
remaining half were educated very imperfectly. The Birmingham
Education Society, after equally, if not more, minute investiga-
�196
tions, came to precisely the same conclusion with regard to
the children in this town ; and the London Diocesan Board of
Education reported that from 150,000 to 200,000 children, in one
portion only of the Metropolis, were without means of education..
There is reason to believe that the number of children educated in
large towns has not, during the last ten or twenty years, increased
much, if any, more than in proportion to the increase of the
population. Such is the state of things in our large towns. How
is it in the agricultural districts ? Canon Kingsley has written to
us, saying that he lias read the report of the Birmingham Education
Aid Society with great interest ; he did not know how' badly
educated we were, but he did know from twenty-seven years’
experience as a parson, that the voluntary denominational system
was a failure in the agricultural districts. Mr. Villiers, who was
called by Sir John Pakington one of our most able school
inspectors, corroborates the statement by saying that half the
children of the working classes in the rural districts, between the
age of ten and thirteen, receive no scholastic education at all,
and the other half, so long as the present system remains, will
nevei be more than half educated. Other school inspectors, and
not only school inspectors, but also a Cabinet Minister, a member
of the late administration, believe and endorse these statements.
These are the circumstances under which the National Education
League has sprung into existence, and my only surprise is that
it was not formed long ago. We begin by putting our hands
upon what we conceive to be the cause of all this ignorance.
think that it cannot be expected to be otherwise, when
we remember, that the whole educational system of this country'
is based, upon the benevolent activities of so small a number
of mon. The basis of our system is too narrow'. In this
condition of things what does the State do ? Where there happens
to be a clergyman who understands his duties; vdiere there
happen to be rich manufacturers or benevolent individuals,
who undertake to erect and partially maintain schools—where
it finds there is some education, defective though it be—
there it is ready to help ; but in other districts, where benevolent
individuals do not exist, and there is no education at all, what docs
�197
the State do ? Like the priest ’and the Levite of old, it passes by
on the other side. Its assistance is given where assistance is least
needed. Where the wealthy are doing something it heaps its
riches. The practice of the State with regard to education
reminds us of what the poet says of sleep :—
“ He, like the world, his ready visit pays
Where fortune smiles; the wretched he forsakes ;
Swift on his downy pinion flies from woe,
And lights on lids unsullied with a tear.”
What the League professes is this : not to interfere with the exist
ing system where it is effective. We don’t wish to revolutionise
the present schools, we don’t wish to sweep them away. What
we do wish is this : that where voluntaryism and denominationalism have failed, the State should step in; and that, the State
should be called upon to recognize the highest of all its duties, the
duty of saying, that every citizen shall be brought up to be able to
understand the laws he is bound to obey, and to understand
what are the duties of a citizen. Now, we propose that this should
be effected in the following manner :—That in every large town, and
in every county, school boards should be elected by the ratepayers
or their representatives ; that these school boards should ascertain
where there is a deficiency of education, and, wherever they are
wanted, erect and maintain free and unsectarian schools. Having
done that, they should appoint committees to manage those schools.
The State inspectors should have power to see that the various
localities perform, and perform efficiently, the duties imposed
upon them. If the school boards fail to perform these duties, the
State inspectors should then step in, and see that they are performed.
We propose—or rather I propose, for I am speaking now as much
in my own name as in that of the League—I propose that the
schools should be maintained not only by the State, but by the
local rates, in the proportion of two-thirds from the central govern
ment, and one-third from the local authorities. Now, the objection
to this system, in the first instance is, according to our opponents,
that it will kill voluntaryism. To that I reply, it need do no
such thing. We shall leave voluntaryism alone. Nay, we shall do
more—we shall create half as many more schools as are now in ex
�istence, and we shall require for these schools an army of volun
teers. Every member of our school boards, every member of our
echool committees, will be as much a voluntaryist as any school
manager under the existing system, and he will be a better, a more
efficient, voluntaryist j foi' he will have to do with an organised
system, and he will not only have the promptings of his own
benevolence to lead him to his duty, but he will have the ex
perience and the authority of the State system to guide him.
Besides, there is another most important thing to be remembered :
what is it that keeps enormous numbers of our children now out of
school, but poverty ■ poverty to that degree that they cannot
appear in our streets, because they are too ragged, and
have not food to maintain themselves. These children never
appear in our schools. If there be any excess of volunteers
wanting employment in this country, let it seek out thesechildren, and feed and clothe them, so that when they do appear in
our schools they may appear in that condition which will enablethem to take advantage of the teaching they are to receive. Let
me illustrate this. Time was, when in this town the rich peoplewere called upon to contribute from their own libraries, to thelending libraries attached to our Church institutions; that was
voluntaryism. There was much of that voluntary effort. But the
State stepped in and provided for the people those magnificent freelibraries which are now our boast. Voluntaryism may be said to havebeen killed there, but it only made place for something infinitely
superior; and the spirit of voluntaryism still lives, and has a betterand a wider field of action. Depend upon it, that so far from
voluntaryism being killed by the institution of State schools, it
will be utilized, it will be organized and developed. Another
objection is, that the education given in these schools will
be a godless education. But we have heard during the last few
days that in many of our schools—I will not say in most of them
—the education which is there given, and is called religious educa
tion, has but a very small tincture of real religion in it; and we
have been told by the most eminent men, who understand what
they are talking about, that in the new schools—schools wherethere will be no sectarian theology taught—there may be, and we-
�199
believe there will be, as much religion as in nine-tenths of the
schools that exist now. And even supposing that there were no
theology; supposing the children left those schools without any
knowledge of the difference between one sect and another, and did
not know what you meant when you asked what sect they belonged
to—what then ? The foundation would have been laid upon which
any or all of the sects could operate to advantage, and, no doubt,
upon the foundation thus laid, a superstructure of religion could be
raised that would be worth having. Having supplied these schools
—schools based upon the taxation of the country, and managed by
the representatives of the ratepayers, and belonging to the people
absolutely, because they would have paid for them, as much as if
they had taken the money out of their own pockets, in the shape
of subscriptions—three things would of necessity follow. We say
that most schools must of necessity be schools, where there shall
be no theological teaching of any sort whatever. We say that
we have no choice in the matter, if schools are to be national
schools they must be unsectarian. We say besides that, having
provided these schools, it would be not merely illogical, but it
would be a most unjust thing, if we allowed the children still to
run idle about the streets. Do you think it likely for a moment
that a ratepayer would consent to pay an additional rate in order
that children might be educated, and yet to see these poor children
for whom he paid the rate, neglected by their apathetic parents,
and not receiving the benefit which had been provided for
them ? It would be impossible to collect a school-rate under such
circumstances. Some people say that there would be great harsh
ness—that it would be un-English—that the people would resist
anything in the shape of compulsion. Now, I will not dwell upon
it to-night, because there is one who is going to follow me who is
able to do it much better than I can myself; but I will simply say
this, that the manner in which this compulsion may be exercised in
this country is extremely simple, and, in my opinion, will be com
pletely in harmony with the wishes of the people. It is most easy
to obtain a complete registration of all the children in the country ;
S3 easy as it is to obtain a registration of voters. When you have
obtained this registration, you must put against each child’s name
�200
the name of the school that it is intended to go to. Then send to
each one of the school committees a list of the children that ought
to attend its school, and throw upon the school committee the
duty of seeing that these children attend. Give the school
committee, officers, whose duty it shall he to go to the houses of all
parents whose children are not attending regularly at school. Let
these school officers explain to the parents what their duties are,
and the penalties that may attach to the non-performance of them.
And remember that these schools will be free schools—remember
that the Factory Acts will prevent parents from sending their
children to work, and then consider what motive can there be in
the minds of any parents to prevent their children going to school,
when they are entitled to send them, under such circumstances ? I
will engage to say that, after a year or two of the operation of such
a system as that, there will be very few, indeed, who will not regu
larly and willingly send their children to school. Of these few it
may be necessary to make one or two examples. Let them, if they
persist in neglect, be summoned before the magistrates; and what
will usually result is this—the magistrates will warn, and, on promise
of amendment, no other result will follow; but when the parent
is brought up a second time, the infliction of a fine will be very
well merited, and I am sure will not shock the sense of justice and
propriety of the working classes. Now, we say in the third place,
that these schools, if attendance he compulsory, must be free. I
have received, this morning, a letter from Edward Polson, and he
says—“ As one of the working classes, I wish to ask you if, in your
opinion, it is fair for an honest, hard-working, steady man, to be
forced to pay rates for the education of a drunken, lazy man’s
children ? In my opinion, it is not at all a fair thing; but perhaps
you can show me that it is fair. For my part, I cannot see it.”
Now, I am not at all surprised at this state of feeling ; but I would
reply, that he is already subject to this very injustice, because he is
called upon to pay a very much larger sum than he will ever
be called upon to pay for an education rate, in order that that
drunken and lazy man’s child-—nay, that man himself—shall
be kept in the workhouse, or shall be punished in the gaol. Meeting
the writer of this letter upon his own ground, namely, his desire to
�201
save himself from taxation, I say it is for his own interest that he
should ask for this education rate. But even supposing that it were
not so—supposing that for a few years he should have to pay
increased rates—surely there are considerations of a higher nature.
'Can he—not merely the rich, but the poor man, the working man
—can he pass by these poor children in our gutters, these neglected
Arabs of the streets—can he pass them by, knowing their miserable
state, and their wretched prospects, and steel his heart against their
highest interest, having the power to place them in a better position,
merely because their unnatural parents—(The close of the sentence
was lost in an enthusiastic outburst of cheering, which was prolonged
for a considerable time.) When these parents neglect their duty,
what the League says is this : that it is the duty of the State to
come in and be a parent to these innocent victims. And what we
wish to do is, to call upon the Legislature of this country to take'
upon itself that duty. We don’t wish to say anything in disparage
ment of the services of those men who have hitherto taken charge
of the education of the country; but we say that they have proved
that they cannot undertake to educate all, and we say that all
must be educated, and all shall be educated; and that it is the
State alone that has the power to act up to this. The State can do
it, and the State will do it. We have now a Minister of Education,
in Mr. Forster, who, in my opinion, has the will to do it; but I am
not so certain that he has the power. But what we are going to do
is this : by means of this League and its branches, we are going to
rouse the people—in whom now, happily, is placed political power—
in order that we may say to Mr. Forster, “ Be our leader, and give
us what we want; we’ll support you.” But if Mr. Forster should
hesitate, if he will not transfer the education of this country from
the voluntary and denominational basis, upon which it now rests, to
the basis of the taxation and self-governing energy of this country,
then, much as we respect Mr. Forster, much as we esteem his
strength of character, his excellent will and his great skill, it will
be our duty to say, even to Mr. Forster, our hitherto leader, that we
can follow him no longer. We shall say, “ We have taken upon
ourselves the performance of a duty than which, none can be higher
- the duty of seeing to the education of every child in this country •
�202
and that duty we shall perforin—with you as our leader, if you will,
hut if not, in spite of you.
The Mayor then called upon Professor Fawcett.
Professor Fawcett was received with cheers. He said, Mr.
Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen,—It is my privilege to speak to you
this evening on the greatest and most important of all social and
political questions. During the last two days the National
Education League has been inaugurated under the happiest auspices,
and the people of this town may indeed be congratulated, that the
name of Birmingham is destined to be associated with an organ
ization which will. prove as fruitful in its blessings, as were the
labours of the Anti-Corn Law League. This organization has been
inaugurated under happy auspices. A great body of gentlemen,
living different lives, looking upon questions from different points
of view, have come together with one common object. They have
resolved to sacrifice all minor differences of opinion upon points of
detail, because they are determined that they will be a united body
in the effort they intend to make, an effort which they promise you
shall never cease, until elementary education has been guaranteed
to every boy and girl in this country. Perhaps the greatest
danger that threatens this movement is, the possibility that some of
us may be tempted to accept a compromise. This is the rock
which has imperilled so many great movements. Free trade was
endangered by the offer of an 8s. fixed duty. Household suffrage
was imperilled by the offer of a .^6 rating and a <£7 rental
franchise; the future of national education in Scotland ran a
narrow risk of being wrecked last session, by as bad a bill as was
ever spoiled by the House of Lords. But will you authorize us to
say in the House of Commons, in your name—you, representing
a great body of the industrious classes of this country—that you
agree with us, that nothing will, nothing ought to satisfy you,
short of a measure which will impose rates 'where educational
appliances are insufficient, and which will compel the attendance
of those children at school, upon whom, by their parents, the
irreparable wrrong is being inflicted of allowing them to grow up in
a state of ignorance ? This, no doubt, is a great movement, and it
will require hard labour to bring it to a successful issue. It is a
�203
great movement indeed, because what is our end, and what is our
aim? To raise millions of our fellow-countrymen who are sunk
deep in the depths of ignorance. This is a movement which will
require all the popular support which such vast audiences as thia
can render it. No one can tell the effect which may be produced
upon the minds of our statesmen and our rulers by such meetings
as this. It is our privilege at the present time to be governed by a
Prime Minister who is ever ready to be instructed by the intel
ligently expressed public opinion of this country, and if Mr Glad
stone has not made up his mind on the educational question yet,
nothing is so likely to give clearness and distinctiveness of view
and firmness of resolution, as the expression of opinion of such an
audience as this, in favour of unsectarian, compulsory national
education. It is sometimes said that our proposals are revolutionary.
We cheerfully accept the title. We intend to effect a great
revolution, because we intend, if possible, to root out ignorance,
with its attendant misery and vice, and substitute in their place all
the self-dependence, all the material welfare, which result from
intellectual culture. If the revolution should be successful, the
displacement of the worst tyrant that ever afflicted a country will
not confer greater blessings, than will our efforts upon this country.
It is almost unnecessary for me to speak to you of the usual
aspect of this question. It is almost a truism to say that no
social reform, no scheme of philanthropy, can produce any per
manent effect, unless it makes the labourer self-dependent. If a
child is permitted to grow up to manhood in ignorance, he has to
pass through life, as it were, crippled and maimed, deprived of
half the power with which he has been endowed by nature to
secure his own mental and material advancement. Sometimes it
is said that these proposals of ours are anti-English. There is
something which is not only anti-English, but which is anti-human,
and that is the spectacle of millions sunk in such ignorance as if
they were living in a heathen land. Anti-English! will the
Conservatives venture to raise the cry? They-have not passed
many legislative measures during the last thirty years. But
what is the measure from 'which they take some credit ? Why,
they are never tired of talking about the honour which is due
�204
to their party by the passing of the Factory Acts. What is
one of the most valuable provisions in the Factory Acts ? The
compulsory educational provision, which declares that it shall be
illegal to employ any child unless he attends school so many hours
a week. By recent legislation the compulsory educational pro
visions of the Factory Acts have been extended—not in a good
form, indeed, but still the principle has been extended to every
branch of industry in England, except agriculture; and we shall
not be generous, we shall not be fair, to the class of labourers who
most require State intervention, if we much longer permit agricul
ture to be thus excepted. Assuming, then, as we may, that the
principle of the Factory Acts has now been approved of by all
political parties, it is indisputable that the principle of compulsory
education has been accepted.
How, then, can the monstrous
anomaly be permitted to intervene, that we should say, as we are say
ing at the present moment, that if a parent sends his child to work,
education shall be enforced upon that child, but that no similar
compulsion shall be used against the parent who is so base, so
degraded, that he will neither send his child to school nor to work ?
Many of you, most of you, whom I am addressing, are engaged,
either as employers or employed, in the industry of this town. You
know that facts, painful facts, are every day brought under your
notice which show, that unless we have national education, it will
be absolutely impossible for England to maintain her commercial
position. In various trades we have each year to carry on a keener
and more closely-contested competition with foreign countries.
Industry requires, now, the use of delicate machinery; it requires
the skilful application of that machinery; it requires those moral
qualities which make the labourer most valuable, and which enable
him to understand the true principles of trade. Bearing this in
mind, it is as impossible to expect that an uneducated country will
be able successfully to compete against an educated country, as it
would be to suppose that a hand-loom weaver, could profitably
struggle against the appliances of modern mechanical invention.
We are too much prone to deceive ourselves by the signs of material
wealth. We are accustomed to sing poeans of exultation over
increasing exports and imports, but behind all this glitter and show,
�205
behind all this evidence of material wealth, there are the ugly, there
are the portentous facts, that one out of twenty of our population is
a pauper, and there are countless thousands who are in such a
state of misery that they are verging upon pauperism. Tor twenty
years, various material appliances have been brought into operation,
all of which have tended to stimulate the production of wealth.
We have had free trade, we have had mechanical inventions, we
have had the extension of the railway system. When these facts
are borne in mind, does it not convince us of this great truth—a
truth which should never be lost sight of—that there is something
more required to make a nation great, and happy, and prosperous,
than mere material agencies. You must act upon the mind, and, in
that way, upon the morality and social character of the people. The
Education League has, to my mind most wisely, in the first instance,
confined itself to elementary education. Of course, this is the
first, this is the essential thing to be done. But this ought to be
regarded as only a part of our work. The opinion I am about
to express is, I know not whether it will be thought extreme, or
Quixotic, but I have long entertained the idea, and I do not mean
to relinquish it, that we never ought to be satisfied until the
poorest child in this country, if he has the requisite ability, should
have an opportunity of enjoying the very best education the nation
can afford. You ask me, perhaps, how is this end to be attained ?
I believe it can be attained by a just, by a wise administration of
our vast educational endowments. Those educational endowments
ought, to my mind, to bo devoted to reward the meritorious, to what
ever class and whatever religion they belong. I would not give, as a
matter of right, a free education, but no child should suffer from
want of education in consequence of the poverty of its parents.
But I hold that the greatest of all human responsibilities is incurred
by bringing a human being into the world, and I think every
parent should feel, that it is as much his duty to give his children
education as it is to provide them with food and clothing. Now,
with regard to the administration of the educational resources of
the country, much has already been done by the Endowed Schools
Bill, which was passed last session; for the main principle of the
Bill was this—that those endowments should be devoted to reward
�206
meritorious students. Therefore, when we have these elementaryschools which Mr. Dixon, who represents the League, proposes
should be established, we may look forward to see poor boys ad
vanced from the elementary schools to the first grade school, and to
the second grade school, and thence to the University. When
they get there, I can only say that we shall cordially welcome them;
for it is the great glory of those Universities, that they welcome
mental cultivation and intellectual power, from whatever class they
are drawn. As a Cambridge man—and I know I am expressing the
opinion of many Oxford friends also—I can say that we should
rejoice to see in Oxford or Cambridge two or three hundred stu
dents, sons alike of the poorest men and the wealthiest merchants
of this town, all being brought under the influence of the educa
tion which we can give them. There, we know no social favouritism,
we never ask who a man’s father is, we have no governing families.
What a happy thing it would be if the same remark could be
made with regard to English politics. But you may perhaps say
that something will require to be done, before the Universities can
do what you wish them to do. You know that there are still there
religious liabilities, and religious tests; but I venture to think that
the overwhelming majority of the country has already declared
that those disabilities and those tests shall be completely swept
away. A University Tests Bill—I say a University Tests Bill, for
it was only a half measure—passed the House of Commons last
session. Here again is an illustration of the danger of great ques
tions being wrecked upon the rocks of compromise. That bill
would have only done its work after a long course of years. It
would not have swept away those tests and disabilities, it would
only have given the colleges the power to sweep them away if they
liked, and the bill might possibly for years to come have produced
very little effect whatever. The bill passed the House of Commons;
but sometimes we derive signal advantage from the unreasoning
resistance of the House of Lords, and I feel more profoundly
.grateful to them than I can describe. It seems to me that the
one useful function which they perform, is to reject a bill when
it is a compromise, and thus give the House of Commons an op
portunity of waking up to its senses, and seeing its true position.
�207
Political predictions are dangerous, but I venture to predict that the
House of Lords will never see that bill again. The next session
they will have to express their opinion upon a very different measure.
They will have to say “aye” or “no” to a proposal which will
abolish, at once and for ever, every remaining vestige of religious
test and disability, and thus make the Universities truly national
institutions. It is for such audiences as this to say that this is your
will, and that nothing short of it will satisfy your just demands.
But great as is the vista which is opened by the education question
in all its aspects in England, we may, perhaps, not improbably have
to render as great service to the sister country as we have rendered
to her by the disestablishment of the Church, and as we shall
render to her by passing a land bill. Undenominational education
is a great principle in England. But it is a principle still more
dearly, still more carefully to be cherished in Ireland. There is
danger that the national school system of that country, which is
undenominational, may be imperilled. There is danger that the
University question in that country may be settled on a denomina
tional basis. I believe that if we permit this to be done, we shall do
more harm to Ireland by permitting the ascendancy of an ultramon
tane hierarchy, than we have done good by the destruction of the
ascendancy of the State Church. In conclusion, if I have not
already detained you too long, perhaps you will permit me to say
that the science which it is my privilege to teach, instructs us in the
lesson, that nothing more tends to promote efficiency and industry
than division of labour. With division of labour, each individual
can devote himself to the particular process for which he has the
greatest capacity, and without it we should find skilled mechani
cians doing what might be equally well done by unskilled labourers.
Unrestricted commerce, again, enables the capital and labour of
each country, to be applied to those branches of industry for which
it has the greatest natural advantages. This is the secret of free,
trade. Similarly, we believe that a complete system of national
education would enable the individual capacity of each person to
be utilized in the best possible way for the benefit of his country.
Many a person there may be, now toiling monotonously in the
fields, labouring in some deep-sunk mine, or carrying out, year after
�208
year, some work of mere routine, who, if his abilities had been
properly developed, might have executed some work of art, invented
some new machine, organized some political or social movement, or
produced some literary work which might have permanently en
riched and benefited mankind. There is in life no more melan
choly spectacle, than that generation after generation should pass
away, without sufficient knowledge to understand the beauties and
wonders with which Nature has surrounded them. Can it be
right, can it be just, that Nature, which has been so boun
tiful, should not be appreciated as she might he? And
is it not strangely sad, that some people who seem to arrogate to
themselves the title of religious, seem to care more about the
paltry triumph of a creed, than they do about education, which
would elevate the people from the ignorance which is alike degrad
ing to human nature, and antagonistic to moral and material
advancement ? Some of those who are willing that the education
question should stand still whilst they wrangle about bringing
children under the influence of some barren formality, such as
Apostolic succession, should remember the significant words of the
Prophet when he said, “ My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge.”
The Mayor then called upon Mr. Mundella, member forSheffield.
Mr. Mundella, M.P.: Mr. Mayor, ladies, and gentlemen,—Thefew words that I shall say to you shall be in support of theresolution which has been so ably and exhaustively moved and
seconded by my two honourable friends who preceded me. I shall
address myself mainly to the working men, by the request of mv
friend your worthy member ■ and as it is the first time I have had
the honour of addressing an audience of working men in Birming
ham, I confess that I feel proud of the opportunitv of doing so,
•because you are represented in the House of Commons by one
of the noblest men and most honest politicians of any age orcountry. The considerations which I venture to submit to you
shall be of a purely practical character. First, I ask, what are theobjects of the association ? The establishment of a system which
shall secure the education of every child in England and Wales.
�209
How do we propose to effect it ? School accommodation being
provided, the State or the local authorities shall have the power to
compel the attendance of children of suitable age, not otherwise
receiving education. The means therefore are, first, by making
provision, and then compelling attendance. Now, I desire to point
out to you what has already been effected elsewhere, by compulsory
education, because although this is a new doctrine in England, it
has been in operation thirty years in Switzerland, forty years in
Saxony, and thirty-five years in Prussia, and on the first of
January next it will come into operation in Austria. Eighty
millions of the people of Europe will, on the first of January next,,
be subject to the operation of this law. What has been its effect
in the free republic of Switzerland ? They are the most intelligent
and best educated people in the world. You may go from canton
to canton, you may go from one end of the country to the other,
and you cannot find a child of twelve years of age that will not read
and write ivell, that does not know something, intelligently too,
of the history of its country, and has not also a knowledge of other
useful acquirements. It has been my fortune for some years past
to have an opportunity, of studying the effect of compulsory
education on the Continent, and I wish you, working men of
Birmingham, to comprehend what the effect of the system is.
I am an employer in the little kingdom of Saxony, now
part of the North German Confederation. I have a manager
there who has been fixed there for nine years. I have gone
there year after year, and have remained there a month
at a time, and I have visited its schools, which are marvels of
arrangement and pedagogic science (for these are the words with
them), and I have never yet found, nor has the manager yet found,
a man in the country who could not correspond intelligently with
his employer, nor a child of ten or twelve years of age who could
not read and write as well as myself; and although that country,
and Prussia, and Switzerland have many disadvantages, as
compared with ourselves, although their commercial position is
infinitely inferior to ours, although there is a lack of capital, and
geographically they are much worse in their position than Great
Britain, yet I am ashamed to say that I have never met there with
o
/
�210
that squalor, that brutal ignorance, that terrible destitution, which
I meet m my own country. Now, what is the state of things as
we see it m England? You working men, you know well what it
is. What has been the effect of the present system? It has
reversed the teaching of Scripture—it has filled the rich with good
things, and the poor it has sent empty away. It has bettered those
•who can and ought to help themselves, but those who can do
nothing for themselves it has utterly neglected. Look at our ragged
schools; they have had no assistance from the State, and look at
the thousands of poor children who cannot obtain admission even
into the ragged schools. You know—no men know so well as the
working classes—what is the educational condition of the poor that
surround you in the streets, and lanes, and alleys of our large
towns. By the assistance of your worthy member, an education
society was formed in this town, and 1,000 children in employ
ment were tested. I have had an opportunity of testing thousands
of children, in this and other towns, children, the great majority of
whom have passed through our schools ; and what is the result of
our education ? What with irregular attendance, few attendances,
and attendances for a short time only, when the child grows up to
fourteen or fifteen years of age, it has almost forgotten anything it
■ever learned at school, and the very little it retains is utterly use
less for any practical purpose. And what is it that we propose to
■accomplish ? We propose that the child shall commence at a cer
tain age and attend, for a certain number of years consecutively,
regularly at school • that when the child enters upon its labours, it
shall have the benefit of the half-time system for some years longer •
and that the poor man’s child shall, as the hon. member for Brighton
has said, have the same opportunities which the rich man’s child
has, to develop those faculties with which it has been endowed.
One thing you may be well assured of, the rich man in the middle
classes will take care that his children are educated, because he
knows that without education their career in the world is utterly
ruined and destroyed. Why shouldn’t the poor man’s children
be educated, then, in the same manner ? Why should they not
have open to them the same career and the same advantages ?
It simply depends upon audiences like this to demand it. Now
►
�211
I want to point out to you the machinery by which this is
to be accomplished; because many objections are raised to it,
and you are cautioned, above all things, that your liberties are
about to be destroyed, and your parental rights taken away. You
are told that, if you submit to the system of compulsory education,
the policeman will drag you before the magistrates, and you will be
shut up in prison, because your children may not be in attendance
at school. I wish to show exactly how this is done elsewhere, for
the 80,000,000 of people I have before referred to. Every child
in the North German Confederation, and in Switzerland is registered,
and next year every child in Austria will be registered, on a system
precisely the same as that of the political register in England. The
school boundaries are conterminous with the political boundaries ;
they are divided in Switzerland into cantons, districts, towns ; in
Prussia, into towns, counties, divisions of towns ; and in Birming
ham there would be the central district, and the wards. They are
managed by local bodies. These local bodies have the power to
demand that the children be sent to school, and it is their duty to
see that they are sent. If the parent neglects to send his child to
school, what is the result ? Is a policeman sent to him with a
summons in his pocket? No. There are persons called school
messengers. These school messengers are generally pupil teachers,
or have just finished their education in the school. They go to the
house and inquire why the child is not at school. If, as in nine
cases out of ten, or, I might say, in ninety-nine cases out of a
hundred, the child’s absence can be accounted for, it is perfectly
satisfactory. But if it is through neglect, and continued neglect,
the parent is brought before the school committee, and the law is
pointed out to him, and he is told that it will be enforced against
him if he rebels. If he continues contumacious, he is filled. I
have known it 6d., 10d., and up to 2s. 6d. for a second or third
time. But I tell you what has been the result of the compulsory
system : there is the same wholesome state of public opinion
with respect to the father who starves the intellect of his
child, as there is with you when a father starves his child
by denying it bread. It is a constant thing with me,
whenever I have an opportunity—it has become almost a
�212
habit with me—to seize upon poor children wherever I find them,
whether in the factory, the workshop, or the street, arid ascertain
exactly what our glorious system of education has done forthem.
A fortnight ago I found on the step of my counting-house door a
number of lads, and I coaxed them up-stairs into my counting
house. There were nine of them, and some were very ragged
specimens indeed. They thought I had some sinister motive,°and
it was with some difficulty I induced them to go with me. I
examined them separately on their educational acquirements. Not
one of those poor boys could read the simplest word. I had the
Times newspaper before me. Two of them could manage the The,
but not one of them could spell Times. Not one of thZm had the
slightest idea of the existence of God, except to use his name in
blaspheming. Yes, but some of them said, they had once been at
school, at five or six years of age, and they had been since, some
at the brickyard, some at one employment, some at another.
Their ages ranged from eleven to sixteen. There was only
one of those children, for whom there was any reasonable
excuse why he had not been regularly at school. The
absence of the others was mainly owing to drunkenness on the
part of the parents. Now I ask you, is this to be continued any
longer ? Are these children to be thrown as paupers or criminals
upon society, and that in the name of the most sacred rights_
British freedom, parental authority, and so on—to breed up a race
of criminals, paupers, and wretches to prey upon society ? We are
told that the working classes cannot afford to lose the earnings of
their children. It is this I wish to meet, and I think I can do so,
because it is really the gravest argument that can be brought to
bear upon the whole question. Now, I find in the countries I
have referred to in North Germany particularly—a new Labour
Act comes into operation next year, and this new Act runs thus :__
No child shall be employed in any regular employment, except
domestic employment, by the parent after school hours, until it is
twelve years of age. It has been repeatedly said to me that the
English workman cannot do without his child’s earnings until the
child is twelve years of age. “ What is to become of a man with
six or eight children ? ” they say, “ You are depriving him of the
�213
earnings of his children.” But those who make this objection take
children as if they were like rabbits—all of an age. They forget
that if a man has six children, the chances are that they run
something like 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12; that he has not to struggle to
keep them all at school at once, and that in a year or two, when
the eldest gets employment, it earns a great deal more money if it
has been educated. Nay, and what is more—and this is a question
I wonder that trades unionists have not seen, and I don’t care how
soon they do—if there were not so many children employed who
ought not to be employed, many parents would be better paid than
they are. Now, assuredly what can be done by 80,000,000 of peo
ple in other parts of Europe can be done by Englishmen, must be
done by them, if they are to keep their place as a nation. Are we
content to be the last in the race—we, who have been supposed to
be in the van of civilization and humanity ? Well, there is another
consideration, and that is the religious difficulty. Now, I never
find that this religious difficulty exists with the working classes;
it exists with those generally who make the objection, on behalf,
they say, of the working classes. T should be exceedingly grieved
- I should be more than grieved—if anything we did tended to
make working men irreligious or irreverent; but I know it is im
possible to effect anything of the kind by the means we propose. I
know that the more knowledge we give, even that secular know
ledge which is so much despised, the better they will be prepared
for the reception of religious truth. What is the drudgery of our
Sunday school teachers, what is the drudgery of our ministers,
dealing with unintelligent children and unintelligent congregations?
Why, I believe we should raise our people entirely, from that brutal
ignorance, and that state of besotted intemperance, that pauperism
and that misery which characterise the lower three or four millions
of the people of England, if we were to give them a good educa
tion. I regret to hear that some association has been formed in
this town, with a view of opposing this benevolent movement.
But I would venture to remind those who engage in that opposition
of some remarkable lines that were written by Charles Dickens,’
describing the constant contests between the sects, and this great
�214
religious difficulty which we now stand in the face of.
said,—
He
“So have I seen a country on the earth,
Where darkness sat upon the living waters,
And brutal ignorance, and toil, and dearth,
Were the hard portion of its sons and daughters ;
And yet where those who should have ope’d the door
Of truth and charity to all men’s finding,
Squabbled for words upon the altar floor,
And rent the book in struggles for the binding.”
The Mayor rose to put the resolution.
Mr. J. Rutherford interposed, asking permission to move an
amendment.
The Mayor said that that was a meeting of the members of the
National Education League, for the transaction of certain business,
and he could not receive any proposition that had not been allowed,
and accepted by the general committee.
The resolution was then carried, Mr. Rutherford' and another
being the only persons who voted against it.
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain : I have been asked to move the fol
lowing resolution:—“ That the Executive Committee of the
National Education League be requested to prepare a bill, based
upon the principles of the League, for introduction into the House
of Commons during the next session of Parliament.” Inasmuch as
this resolution is in fact a formal one, and follows almost necessa
rily from that which has just been, all but unanimously adopted, it
is not necessary for me to say much in its favour. It is clearly
desirable, that our views should be presented as early as possible to
the Legislature in a practical shape; and inasmuch as we believe
that we now have a Government, who are determined faithfully to
carry out the wishes of the people, it will be an assistance, and not
a hindrance, to them that our views should be presented in a proper
form. But I have been requested, as an officer of the local com
mittee, to say a few words in support of the objects and principles
of the League ; and, in the first place, I think I may congratulate
this meeting, and all the friends of education, upon the enor
mous advance, to which this meeting testifies, on the great
question of education. I see in this advance the result
�•215
and the justification of the great political reform, which has
made those most interested in education, the depositories of
a great share of political power. There can be no doubt that
the present officers and members of the League have not, and
cannot have, any personal or selfish motive in the agitation of
this question. One common motive we have, and that is the love
of our common country, which induces us to seek its prosperity and
progress, and which, in the present case, incites us to obtain that
prosperity by cultivating the intelligence, and securing the enlighten
ment of the people. But you have a much nearer and more
personal interest in this matter. Bor it is not merely a question
whether this country shall continue to maintain its position among
the nations, or whether it shall lag behind in civilization, and leave
the victory in industrial and intellectual progress to other nations ;
but for you, it is also a question of the future of your own class,
and perhaps of your families; and you have to say whether they
shall enjoy the advantages which education confers, or whether they
shall remain in the position to which ignorance will condemn them,
even if they do not enter into the ranks of pauperism and crime.
As one guide to your decision upon this question, I ask you to con
sider the character, both of the support and of the opposition which
our proposition excites. As to the friends of this movement, I will
only refer to the adhesions we have received, during the present
Congress from the delegates and representatives of the great Trades
Councils throughout the kingdom; so that, I believe we may say
that directly or indirectly, from 800,000 to 1,000,000 working men
have, at these meetings in Birmingham, given their support to the
platform of the League. But it is chiefly from the opposition
which our propositions excite, that I anticipate a favourable
result—not that the opposition is not formidable, both in ex
tent and in numbers.; but when I see, taking sides against us
upon this question, the selfish hosts whom we have seen ranged
against us, again and again, upon previous questions, and whom we
have again and again defeated, I see an augury of a good result. I
have read that Napoleon I., on the morning of one of his great
battles, told his soldiers that they saw before them those self-same
Prussians whom they had beaten at Jena, whom they routed at
�216
i
s
t:
ii
w
si
to
so
mi
of
wl
■ow
•anc
fou
•eve
less
acct
tain
regu
shah
and
has j
has,
One
classe
know
ruinei
be ed'
have
It sim
Leipsic, and whom they would crush that day; and when I see
taking sides against us now, a great portion of the Conservative
landowners, and a certain section of the clergy, I think of the Com
Laws, of Reform, and of the Irish Church. But the signs of our
success are even more apparent in the trepidation and doubt which
are beginning to operate in the opposite camp. President Lincoln
had a homely proverb, that it was “ bad to swop horses when
crossing a stream but we see our opponents, in the middle of this
discussion, abandon their old hobbies, in the hope that they may
yet save something out of the wreck of the system which is fast
passing away. Only a few years ago, at a meeting wrhich was held
in this town, to consider the state of its education, the local clergy
who were present voted, to a man, against compulsory education,
and most of them were opposed to local rating; but now you find,
in the programme of the society which has been started within the
last few months, in opposition to our League, these two points made
the principal points of their platform. But we, in the meantime,
have advanced a little further, and so these gentlemen are, as usual,
left behind. So it will always be, until they learn to give
up their prejudices a little more graciously, and a little more
quickly. Until they do that, they will never overtake the full
confidence of the people whom they profess to wish to serve. The
present issue between us is simply this : we say that the old
system, which has failed, after a trial of twenty years, should at
least be supplemented by something new; but they say, No, let
us extend and contiuue the old. We say that the nation has
been growing fast, and has outgrown its old clothes, and that it
ought to have a new suit; but they want to let out a tuck here,
and put in a patch there, to make the old rags last a little longer.
Underlying all this resistance, is the fear that, if we do have a new
outfit, we may refuse to employ those who made such a miserable
misfit of the last. His Grace the Archbishop of York, at a meeting
which was held in Liverpool the other day, and which was called a
working man’s meeting, because a large portion of the room was
filled by the clergy, at that meeting his Grace told his audience
that three-fourths of the education of the country was owing to
the clergy, and that the men and the system that had done such
�217
great things ought not to be superseded. I should be the last to
deny or depreciate the enormous sacrifices which have been made
by many of the clergy to establish and maintain schools; but I say
that, on their own confession, their motive has been, not the educa
tion of the people as a thing which is good in itself, but the main
tenance of the doctrines of the Church of England ; and the conse
quence has been, that secular education has been subordinate to this
object, and we remain at this time one of the worst educated nations
in Europe. I say that, even if they had been a great deal more
snccessful than they really have been, it is the worst kind of Con
servatism to say that, because a thing is good of its kind, it shall
not be supplanted by something which is better and more complete.
I cannot understand the propriety of keeping a grown-up man in
swaddling clothes, because he looked very well in them when he
was a baby. To plead for the retention of the denominational
system, under which more than half the children of this country
are growing up without any education worthy the name, because
three-fourths of the remainder are brought up in the Church of
England schools, is as ridiculous as for an old Protectionist to have
pleaded for the Corn Laws, at a time when thousands were perishing
for want of food, because three-fourths of the rest, drew their daily
supplies from the granaries of the farmers. But the real reason
why our opponents support the denominational system is, not be
cause they believe it to be the best means of securing the education
of the people, but because they believe it to be the only means by
which they can maintain a monopoly of instruction. Our choice is
between the education of the people, and the interests of the Church.
Education, to be national, must be unsectarian ; and I cannot sup
pose that there will be a moment’s hesitation as to the choice which
the majority of the nation would make, if it were not that theolo
gical professors, who ought to recognize in education the best foun
dation upon which religion can rear her temple, have perverted the
meaning of religion until, indirectly, it has become a hindrance and
a stumbling-block. The day is not far distant when all will look
back with wonder at this time, and be astonished that intelligent,
earnest, and conscientious men could have thought a profession of
faith in any creed, worth anything as long as it was unintelligent, and
�218
could have been bjind to the fact, that the best handmaid which
any truth can have is a mind trained for its apprehension. It is a
curious and instructive fact, that while almost all other sects are
welcoming the prospect of increased education, as the best pre
paration for their own religious work, there are two which strain
every nerve to preserve and extend the present system, in spite of
its clear deficiencies. These two parties are the Roman Catholic
Church, and the Evangelical section of the Church of England. I
think the latter should have some doubt about the propriety of
the course they are taking, when they see into what company
it has brought them. You know what the pious organ of the
party, the Record, said, when it discovered that Mr. Gladstone
had an acquaintance with Archbishop Manning; you know that
all the resources of Biblical bad language were exhausted, and
men searched the Scriptures diligently to find parallels for the
supposed baseness of the great Statesman. Now the same gentle
men who shuddered at the iniquity of conversing with a Roman
Catholic prelate, are actually rowing in the same boat with the
ecclesiastics of Rome. The interest of the Roman Catholics in
this matter is very clear. If denominational education is to be
extended in England, how can you in justice refuse denominational
education in Ireland? And then you will have this glorious
anomaly in our splendid constitutional system: you will have
the State spending money on mutually destructive objects, and
the patient people will be called upon in one breath, to swallow the
poison and the antidote, and to pay the bill for both. The only
way by which this baneful, dangerous, and senseless application of
the public money can be avoided, is to insist firmly upon the
principle that the secular education of the people should
be the province of the Government, apart from all theological
instruction, which should be left to the respective ministers.
This, at all events, is what the League sets before you. I
read, the other day, that Lord Sandon, in a speech which
he made in the House, said that, speaking from an intimate
acquaintance with the working classes, he was confident that they
would never accept any education which had not impressed upon it
a religious character. If his lordship’s acquaintance with the
�219
working class be correct, our work will be vain; but I prefer to
believe, with John Stuart Mill, that the time is shortly coming when,
the working class will no longer be content to accept a religion of
other people’s prescribing. And if this matter of education is taken up
by the working class, as we hope and believe it will be, and if it is
made part of their political programme, then our success is certain,
and we may yet live to see the glorious time when, prizing know
ledge as her noblest wealth and best production, this imperial realm,
while she exacts allegiance, will admit the obligation, on her part,
to teach those who are born to serve her • and thus only shall we
maintain our position as a great nation, and guard and protect the
highest interests of every class of the community,
Mr. Cremer : I apprehend that the reasons which induced the
committee to ask me to second this resolution were, because I am
known to entertain strong convictions in reference to the question
of national, secular, and compulsory education; and, secondly,
because, being a working man, I may fairly claim to speak of the
wants and wishes of the working class. Those of us who, year after
year, contended for the extension of the suffrage to the working
class, asserted that one of the first objects which the working men,
when they obtained the suffrage, would seek to realize, would be a
system of secular and compulsory education. That prophesy has
received a partial fulfilment in the establishment of the National
Education League, in the successful meetings it has held during the
last two days, and the enthusiastic manner in which you have
endorsed the platform of the League at this meeting ; and I am sure
that when the matter is fairly before the country, our prophecies
will have a complete triumph. Some three years ago, the working
men in the borough in which I reside in London, formed a political
association, and one of the planks in their platform—three years
ago, remember—was national, secular, and compulsory education,
and they declared that any man who came to them in the future to
ask for their suffrages, must be distinctly in favour of secular and
comprdsory education. The result was, that at the last general
election nearly 6,000 workmen recorded their suffrages for the man
who made that the most prominent feature of his political pro
gramme. The tendency of modern legislation was, I think, rightly
�220
described by Sir Stafford Northcote at the Social Science Congress,
when he said it was in the direction of more and stronger govern
ment. The old do-nothing policy has passed away for ever, and has
been succeeded by an earnest determination on the part of the
people to do something useful, and to do ’it well. I fear Mr.
Forster is likely to bring in next session a Bill based upon
the denominational system. I hope, therefore, that the Executive
Committee will as speedily as possible frame a bill embodying the
principles of the League, and get some staunch friend of education,
such as Professor Fawcett, Mr. Mundella, or Mr. Dixon, to intro
duce it into the House of Commons ; because its being in their
hands will be the best guarantee that there will be no unholy
compromise upon this question. Professor Fawcett’s conduct last
session proves that there is no greater enemy of compromise than
he. I wish we had a House composed of such men. With regard
to education, I know there are a great many who are exceedingly
timid at the mention of compulsion. They are quite willing to
provide schools, but the idea of forcing children to attend is
repugnant to them. But the right of the State to compel, where
the well-being of society is concerned, was acknowledged long
ago. In fact, this principle is at the root of all government. To come
to what has been done within our own day : was not the right of the
State to use compulsion acknowledged when the Factory Acts were
passed ? when the Bleaching and Dyeing Act was passed? when
the Inspection of Coal Mines Act was passed ? when the Health of
Towns Act was passed? when the Vaccination Act was passed?
When we talk of freedom, we mean freedom to do what is right;
when we say we don’t want Government to interfere, we mean
that we object to its mischievous interference; but the very pur
pose of its existence is forgotten unless it interferes beneficently.
The only question, then, is whether it is well for us to be educated,
and if so, whether we can have the work done more effectually by
Government than by any other agency ? If so, then the Govern
ment must interfere and do it. We provide inspectors to see that
people whitewash their houses and drain them, and we punish
people who injure society by neglect in these particulars. I have
read, within the last three or four weeks, of thirty or forty cases
�221
where, in the Metropolitan Police Courts, heads of families have
been fined for not having their children vaccinated. There may
be difference of opinion as to whether vaccination is beneficial or
not, and those who think it is not beneficial of course object to
people being fined for not practising it; but among men who are
convinced that vaccination is useful, there is no objection to Go
vernment enforcing it; in fact all people who believe it is good,
want it enforced for the benefit of society at large. It is only
when they become convinced that it is bad that they object toGovernmental compulsion. I hold that the case of education is
precisely similar. If it is good, let us have it—let compulsion be
used if necessary; let it be punished as a crime to starve a child’s
mind, as we punish it as a crime to starve its body ; but if it is
bad, or merely indifferent—if it is of little or no consequence whe
ther people are educated or not—let us have no compulsion. But
we who hold that it is good, and that it is a remedy against moral
pestilence, want the same principle applied to it as to the preven
tion of contagious diseases. Some people object to the programme
of the League, because they say the policeman must be called in to
enforce it. Mr. Mundella has just now disposed of that cry ; but
for my part, even if it were a well-founded objection, I should be
very glad to see a policeman drag a child io school, if I thought
there was a reasonable prospect that by that means he would be
saved the trouble of dragging him to gaol in after years. I would
rather employ the police to save our children from the moral snares
which beset them, than in preventing the snaring of hares, the
beneficent work which our aristocracy have found for a large num
ber of them. As to the state of education hr this country com
pared with some nations abroad, it was my good fortune to visit
Switzerland some years ago. I went through the cities, towns, and
villages, and into the mountains. I had full opportunities of
judging of the education of the people, and I can confinn the
statement of Mr. Mundella that there is not a man or woman,
or a child of ten or twelve years of age—not one, so far as I
could make out—who has not received a thoroughly sound and
practical education. They have not the miserable charity schools
that we have in this country for the people, but they have magni-
�222
cent colleges, built at the expense of the State, where the children
of the shopkeeper, the artisan, and the labourer sit on one commrm
form, and receive a common education; and nothing seemed
to me more likely to root out caste, prejudice, and privilege, and
to knit all classes together, than this intermixture of the children
of all classes in school. When I saw this hi Switzerland, I could
not help hoping that the time was not far distant when we should
see a similar state of things in the United Kingdom. A word to
my fellow-workmen : We are apt to lament the gulf which separates
class from class, and to bemoan our fate, and regret that there should
be such a thing as caste and privilege in society; but you may
depend upon it that you will never get rid of these things of which
you are the victims, until you place yourself upon an intellectual
equality with the other classes of society. That is the necessary
condition of all equality. Do what you will, a rude and ignorant
class can never be upon an equality with a polished and educated
class. What you have to do, therefore, is to educate and polish
yourselves; and if you do that, other classes will lose alike the
wish, and the power to elbow you aside and treat you with contempt.
I insist, therefore, upon education. Take no denial, be turned
aside by no pretext, but insist upon that as the one thing needful,
without which all the victories you have ever achieved or can
achieve, will possess but half then* value, and without which, there
aremany victories which will be impossible. I believe the programme
of the League will help to this intellectual equality which we now
require, and that is the reason why I give it my cordial support.
Let us, as working men, speak out boldly and manfully on this
question. It is of vital importance to us. Let there be no tempo
rising or compromising with us. Let us enter into no unholy
alliances, but do this thing now with all our might, for there never
was a work more worthy of all our energy. I believe we are all
Teady. Four years ago, when I was in the eastern counties, I
found the labourers in the villages, and in the country quite ripe
upon this question even then, and my conviction is that we shall
find an overwhelming force to help us onward. I hope you will
give us all the assistance in your power, and justify the predictions
made in your behalf when the franchise was demanded for you.
�223
One of these predictions was, that as soon as you canre into posses
sion of political power, you would insist upon the education of
every child in the kingdom.
Mr. Carter, M.P. : I don’t intend to inflict a speech upon you
at this late hour of the evening; hut one or two gentlemen have
referred to a speech of the Archbishop of York, and as I know
something of the views of the working men of Yorkshire, I
rise to assure you that when the Archbishop of York tells the
people of Liverpool that the working men of Yorkshire will be
opposed to secular and compulsory education, he says what he is
not authorized to say, and what he will find himself very much
mistaken about, if he will consult the working men of Yorkshire.
The gentleman who has preceded me has told you that a candidate
who inscribed compulsory and unsectarian education on his banner
got 6,000 votes. I did that, and I got 15,000 votes. You re
member that the Bishop of Ripon told the House of Lords, during
the discussion on the Irish Church Bill, that a great change had
come over the working men of Yorkshire, especially in the large
towns, where he said, they were going strongly against Mr. Gladstone.
Now, Archbishops and Bishops, I think, are not generally the best
informed of men on the subject of the feelings of the working
classes. At all events, Mr. Baines and I, a few days after that state
ment was made by the Bishop of Ripon, addressed a meeting of
15,000 working, men in the Leeds Cloth Hall, and we asked them,
was the Bishop of Ripon right ? And about twenty said he was.
Now I take it that the Archbishop of York, knows about as much
as the Bishop of Ripon does, of the views of the working men of
Yorkshire. I know as much of the working men of North York
shire as any man in Yorkshire, and I tell you that they will stand
•shoulder to shoulder with you in this fight. Mr. Mundella can tell
you what they think in South Yorkshire ; he himself represents
their views. One of the previous speakers has observed that if Mr.
Gladstone or Mr. 'Forster should shrink upon this question, you
know how, by your meetings and demonstrations, to give them
firmness and courage, and make them go faster ; you will find that
the men of Yorkshire will assist you.
Mr. Lloyd Jones : It is necessary that we should under
�224
stand precisely the ground we occupy. We are told that wo
shall have to meet a very vigorous opposition, and I have not
the least doubt of it; but I claim to know something of the
working people of this country, and I deny most positively
that any part of that opposition will come from them. It is
said that they have a very strong dislike to compulsion, but I
say that that depends altogether upon what it is, that they are tobe compelled to do. People are very ingenious in finding ex
cuses for inactivity, when they dislike doing anything. We know
Mr. Disraeli declared that the discontent of Ireland was due to the
proximity of the Atlantic Ocean, and that as England could not
remove
it was quite useless to attempt to do anything. Now,,
his party urge as a great obstacle to this movement, that the work
ing classes dislike compulsion, and we know that the party
have reason for considering compulsion a most painful thing;for what have we been doing with them within living memory, but
compelling them? We have kept them under a continued system
of compulsion, and they find it very irksome. We have com
pelled them to pass from one reform to another, and havecompelled them—if not to do—at least to accept, with the best
grace they could, the doing of things which every man fifty years
ago would have declared to be impossible. Only a few days agowe compelled them to disestablish the Irish Church, and, if neces
sary, we shall compel them, in a few days or months more, to
acquiesce in a system which shall educate the whole of the people
of this country. We were told by Mr. Lowe, when the late
Reform Bill was before the House of Commons, that the country
would have to teach its masters their letters ; and that is just what
in real earnest we mean now to do. We know he said it in no
friendly tone to the working classes, but we mean to do it in a
different spirit. The working people are now in possession of'
political power, and it is necessary to educate them to use it
for their own and the country’s good. We want them to be
educated, not that they may become the master-class—because we
believe the mastership of classes in this country has been destroyed
for ever—but we wish to educate them in order that they may be
able to take their part wisely with their fellow-citizens of other ■
�225
classes. With regard to compulsory education, it is said that it
may do very well for the artisan, but will be impracticable in the
agricultural districts, because a family deprived of the labour of its
children will not be able to sustain itself. If that is true, the
sooner such a state of tilings is put an end to by some means the
better. If the children of the agricultural labourers must either
remain in absolute ignorance, or else starve, that is a state of things
which every Englishman with a heart in his body, ought at once to
set about rectifying, if possible. But is it true ? I am sure the
working men will not be turned from the path of duty by
difficulties, especially by difficulties which are not yet actually
in the way, but are only expected ahead, and which may
be found to have no existence, or not to be of so formidable
a nature as is anticipated. We expect difficulties, but we
are determined to conquer difficulties, and do our duty in
spite of them; and the performance of every duty in turn,
as our hand finds it to do, will strengthen us for the performance
of the next. We intend to go on steadily, step by step,
vanquishing difficulties as they appear. A very wise man has
•told us that there is no culminating point in the ascension
of nations, that nations have fallen, not because they had gone
as high as nations could go, but because they have placed their feet
upon a rotten round of the ladder, and it has given way with
them. If we go stupidly and blindly into the future, with an
uneducated people, depend upon it we shall sooner or later step
upon that rotten round of the ladder, and come to grief. With
regard to the assertions which are made that the working people
are opposed to this movement, let those who say so produce the
working people who are opposed to it, let us see them. We can
produce tens of thousands of working men in its favour; let them
show us those who are against it. I know that the working men
of England will go heart and soul with this movement, and I have
no doubt whatever that before long we shall see a thorough system
of national education, unsectarian, free, and compulsory, established
in this country • and when we see that, we shall feel assured of
the perpetual growth of the nation.
The resolution was then put, and carried unanimously,
p
�226
Mr. Jesse Collings (Hon. Sec.): I have great pleasure in pro
posing , “ That the best thanks of the meeting be presented to the
Mayor for his conduct in the chair.” I have also to announce that
“ an early member of the League ”—I am not permitted to give any
name—who has been waiting for his faith to be confirmed by this
Conference, will give £200 in yearly instalments. That is the
second sum of the kind we have had to-day. There is something
very appropriate in having our Mayor in the chair, seeing that
before many of us knew anything about this question, and before
some of us were born, the principles for which we now contend
were matters of settled conviction with him. He is one of those
who hailed this movement in Birmingham, with recognition of the
greatness that belonged to it. He threw himself heartily into the
work of the formation of this League at the beginning, and he has
never ceased, up to the present moment, to give it his hearty aid
and sympathy. I congratulate the town that it has so appropriate
a chairman on this occasion, and I congratulate the Mayor, that it
has fallen to his lot, to inaugurate the most important movement of
modern times in this country. Our scheme is fairly launched to
night • or rather I should call it yours, for you have received it’
with a fervour which makes it yours, and which gives us confidence
in its success. It is a system that all may understand, whilst as to
the scheme or system opposed to it, if it have any principles at
all, no two of them fit into each other. We men of business
wish to deal as soon as possible with this great question; and
remember that if Members of Parliament make the law, the
people make the Members of Parliament. You have, therefore,
the making of the law in your own hands. Do not accept as a
Member of Parliament, any man who will not accept the prin
ciples which you desire to see carried out with regard to educa
tion. The leaders of our opponents could only tell us the other
■day, at the Social Science Congress, that the poor must do what
Canon Girdlestone described, as shutting their eyes and opening their
mouths, and waiting for what Heaven might send them. They
have done that long enough; and now we want them to shut their
mouths and open their eyes, and see what Heaven has sent them.
Let them see the rights sent them by Heaven, out of which they
�227
have been unjustly kept. One right—the dearest of all—is to
have their children educated as human beings. There has been
talk about compromise. We mean no compromise; it is well that
that should be understood. The road has been laid down for you
to-night; you have only to walk in it. It may be a little difficult,
but it goes straight to the point, and if you follow it earnestly and
with determination, you will find what you want.
Mr. Dixon, M.P.: I rise with the greatest pleasure to second
this resolution. We are extremely fortunate in having such a
Mayor to help us as we have this year. I cannot forget that
when I introduced, some time ago, into the Town Council a resolu
tion on the subject of education, our present Mayor moved an
amendment, because he said my resolution did not go far enough,
and he carried his resolution, and the Town Council did that which
was an honour to the town, and an example to the country; and we
are now doing that which satisfies, I am happy to say, our Mayor.
He is satisfied with us, and we are satisfied with him.
The resolution was carried with acclamation.
The Mayor : Ladies and gentlemen,—When my term of office be
longs to the things of the past, there is no event connected with it
that will give me so much pleasure, as that the formation of the Na
tional Education League, and the great movement which has been
inaugurated by it, took place during that term. Ladies and gen
tlemen, I thank you.
This terminated the proceedings.
�1
�FIRST
GENERAL
MEETING,
OCTOBER 12th and 13th, 1869.
LIST
OF
VISITORS.
Adair, Thomas, Derby.
Adams, Francis, Birmingham, Secretary.
Aitken, W. C., Birmingham.
Albright, Arthur, Birmingham.
Applebee, Rev. J. Kay, London.
Applegarth, Robert, London.
Ashford, W. W., Edgbaston.
Aveling, Thomas, Mayor of Rochester.
Bacchus, J. 0., Birmingham.
Baker, George, Birmingham.
Barber, Stephen, Birmingham.
Barnett, William, Birmingham.
Baron, Joshua, J.P., Over Darwen.
Bartleet, Thomas S., Edgbaston.
Basnett, George, Birmingham.
Basnett, S., Birmingham.
Bastard, Thomas Horlock, Blandford.
Batchelor, John, Cardiff.
Bayly, J., Plymouth.
Beal, Michael, Sheffield.
Beale, W. J., Birmingham.
Beale, J. HE., Banbury.
Beales, Edmond, London.
Best, J., Andover.
Bigwood, Rev. John, London.
�230
Binns, Rev. William, Devonport.
Black, Rev. Janies, M.A., Stockport.
Blackham, G., Selly Oak.
Bourne, Alfred, London.
Bottomley, J. Firth, London.
Bovill, W. J., London.
Bray, Rev. Charles, Coventry.
Bremner, John A., Manchester.
Broadhurst, Samuel, Warrington.
Brock, Rev. Dr.
Brodie, Rev. P. B., Rowington.
Brown, Rev. John Jenkyn, Birmingham.
Brodrick, the Hon. George, London.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Burman, R. H., Birmingham.
Busk, Wm., M.R.C.P., F.S.A., &c., London.
Butcher, W., Bristol.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M. A., Bristol.
Campbell, Lord, London.
Carrington, R. C., Farnham.
Carter, R. M., M.P., Leeds.
Carter, John, Birmingham.
Chamberlain, J. H., Birmingham.
Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham, Chairman of Executive Com..
Chadwick, Edwin, C. B., London.
Chapman, Samuel, Rochdale.
Charles, David, Aberystwith.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Edgbaston.
Clarke, Edward G., Hon. Sec. Bristol Branch, Bristol.
Clarke, Thomas Chatfield, London.
Clarkson, Rev. W. F., B.A., Lincoln.
Clayden, Rev. P. W., London.
Coe, Rev. Charles C., Leicester.
Colley, William, Leamington.
Collings, Jesse, Birmingham, Hon. Sec.
Congreve, Rev. John, Rector of Tooting, Graveney.
Connor, Rev. W. A., B.A., Manchester.
�231
Cole, Alfred A., Walsall.
Cornish, Charles Leslie, Birmingham.
Cox, Robert, Edinburgh.
Cox, J. Charles, Hazlewood, Belper.
Cremer, W. R., London.
Creighton, Mandell, Fellow and Tutor of Merton Col., Oxford.
Crosskey, Rev. H., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Curme, Rev. Thomas, Vicar of Sandford.
Dale, Rev. R. W., M.A,, Birmingham.
Davies, Rev. F., D.D., Haverfordwest.
Dawson, George, M.A., Birmingham.
Dixon, George, M.P., Birmingham, Chairman of the Council of
the League.
Dowson, Rev. H. E., Hyde.
Draper, E. Herbert, Kenilworth.
Earl, William, Birmingham.
Edwards, Richard Passmore, Bath.
Edwards, Charles H., Birmingham.
Ellenberger, Dr., Worksop.
Ellis, J. H., Leicester.
Emanuel, Rev. G. J., Edgbaston.
Esson, Wm., F.R.S., Fellow and Tutor of Merton Coll., Oxford.
Evans, Rev. C., Birmingham.
Fawcett, Professor.
Fawcett, Mrs.
Felkin, Robert, Wolverhampton.
Field, Alfred, Birmingham.
Fillingham, John Charles, Sanitary Inspector, Sheffield.
Fish, John, J.P., Blackburn.
Fooks, William, L.L.B., London.
Foster, Dr. Balthazer.
Franklin, Geo. B., Birmingham.
Fry, Herbert, Hon. Sec. of the London Branch, London.
�232
Galpin, Thomas D., London.
Gasquoine, Rev. T., B.A., Oswestry.
Gaunt, Edwin, Leeds.
Geikie, Rev. J. Cunningham, London.
George, Rev. H. B., Fellow of New College, Oxford.
Gillions, Charles Edward B., Bedford.
Glydon, William, Birmingham.
Gore, George, F.R.S., Edgbaston.
Gosling, Alfred, Birmingham.
Grattan, John James, Sheffield.
Grayson, Charles, Liverpool.
Green, T. H., Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
Green, Thomas, Birmingham.
Greg, Louis, Liverpool.
Grenfell, E. F., M.A., Rugby.
Grew, Frederick, Birmingham.
Griffith, Geo., Wolverhampton.
Guedalla, Joseph, London.
Guest, William, F.G.S., Gravesend.
Guile, Daniel, London.
Guise, Sir Wm. Vernon, Bart., F.G.S., F.L.S., Gloucester.
Guttery, Rev. Thomas, Wolverhampton.
Haarbleicher, M. J., Manchester.
Hall, James, Sheffield.
Hammer, Geo. M., London.
Hansard, Rev. Septimus, M.A., Rector of Bethnal Green.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Harrison, John, Birmingham.
Hatton, Joseph.
Hawkes, Aiderman H., Birmingham.
Haycroft, Rev. Dr.
Haye, E., Stoney Stratford.
Heinrick, Hugh, Birmingham.
Heath, Rev. E., Blackburn.
Heathcote, Rev. H. J., Erdington.
Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, London.
Heslop, T. P., M.D., Birmingham.
�233
Hibbs, Charles, Birmingham.
Hill, Alsager Hay, London.
Hills, Harris, Essex.
Hime, Dr., A.B., M.B., Sheffield.
Hinds, Miss, St. Neots, Hunts.
Hodgson, W. B., LL.D., London.
Holland, Henry, Mayor of Birmingham.
Holliday, William, J.P., Birmingham.
Holyoake. George J., London.
Houghton, Rev. C. E., Rugby.
Hosken, R. F., Leamington.
Howell, George, London.
Hudson, J. Davidson, Birmingham.
Huhne, Thomas, Stoke-on-Trent.
Jacob, Alfred, Birmingham.
Jaffray, John, Birmingham, Treasurer.
James, William, Edgbaston.
James, E. H., Birmingham.
James, Rev. Wm., Bristol.
Johnson, G. J., Birmingham.
Jones, Lewis, Birmingham.
Jones, Lloyd, London.
Jordan, Henry, Birmingham Exchange.
Jubb, Rev. W. Walker, West Smethwick.
Judge, Thomas, Brackley.
Klein, Dr. Julius, London.
Kempson, W., Leicester.
Kenrick, William, Birmingham.
Kenrick, J. A., J.P., Edgbaston.
Kenrick, T., Edgbaston.
Langford, John Alfred, Birmingham.
Ladd, W., London.
Lake, Rev. J. W., Warwick.
Le Neve Foster, P., London.
Lester, Wm., Wrexham.
�234
Lloyd, G. B., Birmingham.
Long, William, jun., Warrington.
Longmore, J., Worcester.
Luckett, Rev. Henry, West Bromwich.
Maclean, L. M., Worcester.
Macfie, Rev. M., Birmingham.
Mackenzie, Rev. J. R., D.D., Edgbaston.
McRae, Robert, Birmingham.
Mantle, George H., Birmingham.
Manton, Aiderman Henry, Birmingham.
Manton, John S., Birmingham.
Martin, Robert, M.D., Warrington.
Martineau, R., Edgbaston.
Martineau, R. F., Edgbaston.
Mason, W., Leeds.
Matthews, Evans, Birmingham.
Mathews, C. E., Birmingham.
Maxse, Capt., R.N., Southampton.
McDougal, Rev. J. M., Darwen.
Miall, Rev. William, Dalston.
Middlemore, William, J.P., Birmingham.
Millard, James H., B.A., Sec. of the Baptist]Union of Great
Britain and Ireland.
Milner, Edward, J.P., Warrington.
Milward, R. H., Birmingham.
Moore, Septimus P., LL.B., F.G.S., London.
Morison, Colonel.
Morgan, William, Birmingham.
Mundella, A. J., M.P., Nottingham.
Murch, Jerom, Bath.
Muspratt, Edmund R., Liverpool
Naden, Joseph, Sheffield.
Nash, Thomas, Manchester.
Noel, Ernest, Godstone, Surrey.
�235
Odger, George, London.
Olding, B.
Olsen, Samuel, Birmingham.
Osborne, Aiderman E. C., Birmingham.
Osborne, William, York.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Owen, Edward, Lee Port.
Paget, Charles, Buddington Grange, Notts.
Palmer, W., M.R.C.P., Warwick.
Park, John, Walsall.
Parkhurst, R. M., L.L.D., Manchester.
Partridge, J. Arthur, Birmingham.
Paton, W., Atherstone.
Payton, Henry, Birmingham.
Pears, Edwin, London.
Pease, Thomas, F.G.S., Bristol.
Peiser, J., Manchester.
Pentecost, John, Stourbridge.
Peyton, H., Birmingham.
Phillips, Thomas, J.P., Birmingham.
Pliillpotts, J. S., B.C.L., Rugby.
Pinnock, R., Mayor, Newport, Isle of Wight.
Popplewell, W. J., Manchester.
Postgate, John, Birmingham.
Potter, Edmund, M.P., Carlisle.
Prange, F. G., Liverpool.
Priddy, G. M., M.D., Wolverhampton.
Pryse, Joseph, London.
Quin, F. B. Wyndham, LL.D., F.R.G.S., Market Drayton..
Rabone, John, Birmingham.
Rafferty, Michael, Birmingham.
Ransom, Edwin, Bedford.
Ransome, R. C., Ipswich.
Rawling, S. B., Devonport.
Rawlins, James H., Wrexham.
�236
Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, Upton-on-Severn.
Richards, S. Wall, Birmingham.
Richards, Rev. James, Stourbridge.
Robertson, Dover, Liverpool.
Rogers, W., Edgbaston.
Rogers, Rev. Wm., London.
Rogers, James E. Thorold, Oxford.
Rothera, G. B., Nottingham.
Rumney, Aiderman Robert, Manchester.
Rusden, R. W., Manchester.
Ryland, Aiderman Arthur, Birmingham.
Ryland, T. H., Birmingham.
Sandford, the Ven. Archdeacon, Redditch.
Sandwith, H., Llandovery.
Salwey, Col. Henry, Runnymede.
Sayle, Philip, Liver-pool.
Schnadhorst, Frank, Birmingham.
Sharp, James, Southampton.
Shelley, Rev. Richard, Great Yarmouth.
Simon, Serjeant, M.P.
Simon, Louis, Nottingham.
Simons, W., Merthyr Tydvil.
Smith, Joseph, M.D., Warrington.
Solly, Rev. H., London.
Soul, Joseph, London.
Spark, H. H., Darlington.
Sykes, James Albert, Liverpool.
St. Clair, George, Banbury.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Stepney, W. F. Cowell, London.
Stevenson, George, Leicester.
Swinglehurst, Henry, Milnethorpe.
Tait, Lawson, F.R.C.S., Wakefield.
Taylor, J., Sheffield.
Taylor, Rev. Sedley, Cambridge.
Thomas, Joshua, Birmingham.
�237
Thomas, John, South Shields.
Thomas, J. H., Cardiff.
Thompson, H. B. S., Birmingham.
Thompson, James, Leicester.
Tilley, Alfred, Cardiff.
Timmins, Samuel, Birmingham.
Tobley, James S., London.
Tufnell, E., Carlton, London.
Tunstall, E., Smethwick.
Turner, George, Birmingham.
Underwood, Rev. Wm., D.D., Chilwell College, Notts..
Vickers, Wm., J.P., Nottingham.
Vince, Rev. Charles, Birmingham.
Webb, Edward, Worcester.
Webster, John, Birmingham.
Webster, Thomas, Q.C., London.
Wells, James, Northampton.
Williams, H. M., London.
Williams, R., West Bromwich.
Williams, Rev. Rowland, D.D., Broadchalk.
Williamson, W.B., Worcester.
Whitehead, James, Catford Bridge, London.
Wood, William Robert, Brighton.
Woodhill, J. C., Edgbaston.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Wynne, T., Stone.
Yates, Aiderman Edwin, Birmingham.
Zincke, Rev. F. B., Ipswich.
With many others, whose names have not been ascertained.
THE JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
�' Ji ft! ;Hli 7/ ,!>a»W
..'■J
i
v ....'crrMT ./• .1
''
it:
jjjoV/
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Report of the first general meeting of members of the National Education League, held at Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct. 12 & 13, 1869
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Education League
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Birmingham
Collation: 237 p. : 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
'The Journal'
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5188
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Report of the first general meeting of members of the National Education League, held at Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct. 12 & 13, 1869), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Education
National Education League
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bac74f6bba313c9b2971d0a3366b0882.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=o06oBCdRppqrhNA2azolsNrbRCBnvEAh617RZB1CANwb0JbFXl2XjY2XEKdh3UBbeuNTtraqciF3BDfqVr8AcnvijVpDSkUPel65Q-Wirpe3DpXTE9jUdEfVk8pbTBUWB%7EiuL7ITMO7RX7rpqjKMijKOc65GT2awV6G%7E1k39KYnaY9L258W5XD7itsM-1Uc0Ivl0I4mIS%7EumDOThrCZ94K4nFh9akdon%7E-xQzypJyw3NhDCJtWZ6k-C-iSIVYRX0S7-L463zBXi2bxemDgcJkBFd87dyB17XHKSoEMZdTKSule1Qvh8MVVnwPHUe46Aw6c%7E%7E4WPJdPEfOwjBrvKvhg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
de80925bb1f582f9d5156bbcc35a9440
PDF Text
Text
® t s f i in £rn i HI s
IN FAVOUR OF THE
■M.
REV. JOHN BURNELL PAYNE, \A.,
CANDIDATE FOR THE PROFESSORSHIP
OF ENGLISH
LITERATURE
AND HISTORY AT OWEN’S COLLEGE, MANCHESTER.
�INDEX.
I. Professor Birkbeck.
II. E. E. Bowen, Esq.
III. Rev. W. G. Clark.
IV. Rev. T. L. Kinsbury.
V. F. T. Palgrave, Esq.
VI. H. Sidgwick, Esq.
VII. C. A. Buchheim, Ph.D.
VIII. H. Lee Warner, Esq.
IX. Henry Jackson, M.A.
X. A. Sidgwick.
XI. Oscar Browning.
XII. F. C. Hodgson.
XIII. A. C. Swinburne.
XIV. Thos. Woolmer.
XV. Thos. Hodgson.
XVI. A. W. Benson.
XVII. T. H. Fisher.
XVIII. Joseph Bickersteth.
XIX. De Guingand.
�Wellington College,
May 12, 1866,
Gentlemen,
In forwarding for your inspection my Testimonials, I beg
to state a few other particulars which I think may be important.
I am 27 years of age, and unmarried.
In 1858 I took the Degree of B.A. in the University of London,
with Classical Honours.
I had previously studied for two years at University College,
London. The length of time since my connection with University
College ceased, alone prevented my troubling the Trustees with
Testimonials from my Tutors there, who were good enough to
help me to gain a position as private tutor shortly after my
leaving there.
In 1860 I entered at Trinity College, Cambridge, which I left
in 1862, on gaining a Scholarship, open to the whole University,
at Downing College,
In 1864 I took the Degree of B.A., and was in the Second
Class in Classical Honours, First Class in the Moral Sciences
Tripos.
After Christmas 1864-5 I became an Assistant-Master here,
and at the Christmas Ordination 1865-6 I was ordained Deacon
by the Bishop of Oxford.
Trusting that if I receive the honour of your selection I may
deserve it, and assured that my best efforts will in that case be
devoted to the service of your College,
I remain, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
J. B. PAYNE,
The Trustees of Owen’s College, Manchester,
��TESTIMONIALS.
*
I
Downing College,
June Is?, 1864.
My dear Sir,
From the opportunity I have had of forming an opinion,
I believe you possess very considerable knowledge of English
and General Literature, as well as the power of expressing your
views with facility and clearness. I have no doubt that you
would perform with much ability the duties of the office for
which you are a candidate.
Believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely,
W. Ll. birkbeck,
Downing Professor of Laws in the
University of Cambridge.
To J. B. Payne, Esq.
* This Testimonial and others marked with an asterisk were presented in
support of an application for the Professorship of English Literature at Lam
peter College.
B 2
�6
II *
Harrow, N.W.
Gentlemen,
Having been informed that my friend Mr. J. B. Payne is
a candidate for the Professorship of English Literature and
History at Owen’s College, I have no hesitation in stating
my belief that the College will be most fortunate should it
succeed in obtaining his services.
Everyone who has known Cambridge for the last few
years must be aware of the reputation which Mr. Payne
has acquired for proficiency in these and kindred subjects. I am
not in a position to speak with authority on his classical attain
ments, to which he will of course find many to do justice ; but
I know him to be well versed in the literature of our own
country as well as that of others, and to be, both in speaking
and in writing, no mean master of the language.
By his knowledge, fluency, and taste, Mr. Payne is eminently fitted for lecturing a class; and his general ability and
high character will be esteemed by every student.
I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
E. E. BOAVEN,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; AssistantMaster in Harrow School.
HI.
Cambridge.
Mr. J. Burnell Payne, B.A., of Downing College, and
late of Trinity, informs me that he is a candidate for the vacant
Professorship at Owen’s College.
I have much pleasure in stating that in my opinion he is well
qualified for such an office. He has excellent abilities, and an
extensive knowledge of Modern Literature, English, German, and
French. As he is also able to express himself with fluency, he
would, in my opinion, be an effective lecturer.
W. G. CLARK,
Tutor of Trinity College {Public Orator
in the University').
�7
.
*
IV
Trinity College, Cambridge.
I have known Mr. Payne intimately for some years, and
have great pleasure in expressing my conviction that he is
eminently fitted by his literary tastes and habits, an extraordinarily
wide range of reading, and his familiar acquaintance with other
modern literatures beside that of his own country, to discharge
with peculiar efficiency and credit the duties of the post for
which he is a candidate.
Having received his education partly in Germany, he has
diligently availed himself of the opportunities thus afforded him
of acquiring a familiar and accurate knowledge of the language
and literature of that country, and his proficiency in both
respects is such as even the most cultivated Englishmen very
rarely attain to.
T. L. KINGSBURY,
Chaplain of Trinity College.
N
Whitehall.
• Having had the pleasure of knowing Mr. J. B. Payne
for some years, and having myself had considerable experience
in the line of work which he is desirous of carrying on at
Manchester, I think that I may, without presumption, express
the opinion that he possesses more than common qualifications
for a “ Professorship of English Literature, Language, and
History.” In English Literature, which has more frequently been
discussed between us, he seems to me to have an unusually wide
and accurate range of knowledge, with a lively power of criticising
what he has read. I think him a man successful in giving
others the interest which he himself feels in literature, and that,
as a teacher, he would be eminently likely to lead his pupils to a
broad, and, at the same time, an accurate knowledge of his
subject.
F. T. PALGRAVE,
Late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and VicePresident of the Kneller Hall Normal
Training School; at present Examiner in the
Education Office.
�8
*
VI
Gentlemen,
I am requested to testify to the qualifications of Mr. J. B.
Payne for the Professorship of English and General Literature.
I have known Mr. Payne intimately for some years, and am con
vinced that he is unusually well qualified for such a post. His
acquaintance with our own literature, especially the earlier
writers, is very extensive. His knowledge of the French and
German languages is accurate and complete, and his familiarity
with the best writings in those languages remarkable in an
Englishman. He has a sensitive perception of style, and a sound
and cultivated judgment of literary merit of all kinds. He has
laboriously mastered the writings of the most important thinkers
in England and on the Continent, since the re-awakening of
thought in Europe ; and has successfully trained his mind to take
profound and philosophic views of all subjects upon which he
employs it. He, moreover, combines with this capacity for wide
and general views a strong interest in the individualties of
different authors, and a genuine enthusiasm which would prevent
the study of literature from ever becoming a dry and lifeless one
in his hands.
I cannot blit add, that he possesses in a high degree the power
of stimulating other minds with which he comes into contact,
and of communicating to them his own vivid intellectual interest.
This faculty, combined with the clearness of head and readiness
of expression that he possesses, can hardly fail to render him a
successful teacher.
I am, Gentlemen,
Faithfully yours,
HENRY SIDGWICK,
Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
�9
VII.
King’s College London,
May Yith, 1866.
Enjoying the privilege of a personal acquaintance with
Mr. Payne, of Wellington College, I have much pleasure in
bearing testimony to his high literary attainments, and to his
perfect knowledge of the history and literature, not only of his
own country, but also of that of Germany and France. As a
further recommendation of Mr. Payne, for whom I entertain the
highest respect both as a scholar and a gentleman, I beg to add
that he possesses in an eminent degree a sincere devotion to the
educational profession, and that he is fully acquainted with the
best methods of teaching.
C. A. BUCHHEIM, Ph.D.,
Professor of the German Language and Literature
in King's College; and Examiner in German
to the University of London.
VIII.
Rugby,
May 10, 1866.
My Dear Payne,
I have much pleasure in being able to testify to my
belief that you know more of English Literature than most of
your and my contemporaries at Cambridge. If I am at all
qualified to judge, your knowledge was of a very superior kind;
and of this I am certain, that 1 often derived great instruction
from a walk or a talk with you. Of your fitness for the place, as
regards the interest you take in the subject, no one could doubt.
Of your proficiency I have no doubt.
Believe me,
Yours sincerely,
H. LEE WARNER,
Fellow of S. John's College, Cambridge, Assistant
Master in Rugby School.
�10
IX.
Having been informed that Mr. J. B. Payne, of Downing
College, Cambridge, is a candidate for the vacant Professorship
of English Language and Literature at Owen’s College, Man
chester, I have great pleasure in testifying to my belief of his
fitness for the post. During the last three years I have had
frequent opportunities of forming an estimate of his knowledge
and abilities. He has read extensively in all branches of
literature : in particular he has studied vour early authors with
unusual care. I well remember his acute and just criticisms
upon certain of our less known poets. His own style is fluent
and lively. His love of the artistic, which amounts to
enthusiasm, joined with a remarkable faculty of continuous
exposition and great fertility of illustration, cannot fail to
interest any audience.
I may add that Mr. Payne is well acquainted with the
literature of Greece and Rome, and with the principal languages
of modern Europe.
HENRY JACKSON, M.A.,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
X.
Rugby,
May 10, 1866.
Gentlemen,
Mr. J. B. Payne was an intimate friend of mine during a
considerable part of my residence at Cambridge, and I am there
fore in a position to speak of his abilities not without confidence.
His acquaintance with English Literature is unusually exten
sive ; and he is at the same time possessed of a vividness and
fluency in his powers of expression which cannot fail to stimulate
all whom he has to teach.
His critical powers are sensitive and developed; and he
belongs to that small class, even among cultivated men, whose
minds can be said to be really active.
As a teacher of any subject he knows, he would be un
doubtedly good; of a subject with which he is so well acquainted
as English Literature he would be most excellent.
Believe me,
Yours obediently,
ARTHUR SIDGWICK.
�11
XI.
Eton College,
May 11.
I am extremely glad to hear that my friend the Rev. J. B.
P^yne is a candidate for the Professorship of English Language,
Literature, and History at Owen’s College, Manchester, as, from
his great knowledge of English and Foreign Literature, his
cultivated taste for beauty, and his clearness and facility of
expression, he appears to me admirably suited to fill such a post
with credit.
OSCAR BROWNING,
Assistant Master at Eton College.
XII.
May 11, 1866.
I have very great pleasure in stating that I believe
Mr. J. B. Payne, who is now a Candidate for the Professorship
of English Language and Literature at Owen’s College, to be
exceedingly well qualified by a wide acquaintance with English
Literature for that position. I believe also that his intimate
knowledge of the Language and Literature of France and Ger
many, as well as of the results of the Science of Comparative
Philology, would render him highly qualified for the scientific
Teaching of the English Language.
F. C. HODGSON,
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
XIII.
I have enjoyed for some time the acquaintance of
Mr. J. Burnell Payne. No man who can say the same could fail
to perceive and to admire his varied and accurate knowledge,
his fine and critical relish of the higher literature. Few have
ever seemed to me so fit to hold, so certain to adorn, an office in
which this taste and this talent would find scope at once and use.
A. 0. SWINBURNE.
Author of Atalanta tn Ceylon ” and u ChartelardA
�29, Welbeck Street, W.,
May 10, 1866,
I have been acquainted with the Rev. J. B. Payne for
about eleven years, and, from numerous conversations during
that time, believe him to possess not only an unusually extensive
knowledge of English Literature, both prose and poetical, but
likewise an exceedingly vivid power of expressing his own views
upon the subject, and awakening a similar interest in his audience
to that which he himself feels.
THOS. WOOLNER,
Author of “ My Beautiful Ladyf
XV.
May 10, 1866.
Gentlemen,
Though my acquaintance with the Rev. Mr. Payne is
of recent date, and though I have never had an opportunity of
hearing him lecture, I have been frequently, in intercourse with
him, been much impressed by the evidence he has incidentally
given of his extensive knowledge and thoughtful appreciation of
English Literature, and of the amount of reading- that he has
accomplished, not in careless haste, but with profitable result.
From all that I know or have heard of him, I am much disposed
to believe that if he were entrusted with the Professorship to
which he aspires he would speedily earn a reputation for him
self, to the great gain of the Students and the honour of the
College.
I remain,
Yours respectfully,
W. B. HODGSON, L.L.D.,
Vice-President of the College of Preceptors,
Examiner in the University of London, fyc.
�13
XVI.
May 10, 1866.
The Rev. J. B. Payne has been a year and a half a
Master on the Modern side of Wellington College, and now has
the most important part in the administration and teaching of the
Modern Classes.
He is an excellent modern linguist, and is both widely read
and most deeply interested in Modern Literature, English and
Foreign. He is fond of teaching in itself as an art, and has
most successfully cultivated it. I know, indeed, very few men
whom I consider to be equally apt in catching a student’s diffi
culties, weighing them, and meeting them by clear and lucid
statement.
He has great promptness, and fluency of expression, and is
happy in illustration.
Both by knowledge, therefore, and by cultivation, Mr. Payne
appears to me to be excellently adapted for the public duties of
the post which he now seeks; and at the same time his influence
and example would, I am sure, be exceedingly stimulating to the
private studies of his class.
E. W. BENSON,
Master of Wellington College,
Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
XVII.
Wellington College,
May 11.
Gentlemen,
I have been associated here with Mr. Payne since he
has been at the College, and have had opportunity of observing
his knowledge of History, and his extensive acquaintance with
English Literature ; and if conversation be any criterion for public
lecturing, I can also bear witness to his great dexterity in
weaving his literary knowledge into what he says to those about
him. He has, besides, always had among us the reputation of
an excellent teacher.
I have the honour to be,
Yours obediently,
T. H. FISHER,
Mathematical Master
�14
XVIII.
May 10th, 1866.
The Rev. J. B. Payne, attended my lectures in the
Moral Sciences in St. John’s College, and appeared to me to
show not only great interest in the subject, but remarkable
freshness of thought and power of expression. I believe that
the Examiners for the Moral Sciences Tripos formed the same
estimate of Mr. Payne’s ability from the papers which he sent
up in that examination.
I have little doubt that he would prove an effective lecturer.
JOSEPH BICKERSTETII MAYOR M.A.,
Head Master of Kensington School; late Fellow and
Tutor of St. John's College, Cambridge.
XIX
Mon cher Monsieur Payne,
Si vous me demandez ce que je pense de votre connaissance
de la langue et de la litterature Fran^aise, je repondrai a cela,
toute consideration de camaraderie mise de cote, que je vous
crois aussi bien verse dans la litterature Franc;aise qu’aucun de
nous ; que de plus vous savez fort judicieusement en apprecier la
valeur, et qu’enfin vous possedez notre langue de maniere
a l’ecrire et a la parler presqu’aussi bien qu’un Francis, et
qu’un Fran^ais instruit.
Votre tout devout,
DE GUIGNAND.
Professor of French at Wellington College.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY HARRISON AND SONS,
st. martin’s lane.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Testimonials in favour of the Rev. John Burnell Payne, M.A., candidate for the professorship of English literature and history at Owen's College, Manchester
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Payne, John Burnell
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5682
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Testimonials in favour of the Rev. John Burnell Payne, M.A., candidate for the professorship of English literature and history at Owen's College, Manchester), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dbc167bbdb0a78097b2f9c4d00631ae3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=colN5kfMBCweRTnTPshVkHtCJW4eFUwtG7NGXkrfVSj2eMYWoxXSPTqSD9qtuwqdwI7NUmgatwpQZt%7EqKycshl7Pl%7EE2gyC0SPj%7ENTDElq2Wrnc5mLybwdKQKRi21XFzVSzo3yNMTu1JXDoufuE1XPyftnc28zPTxB1l%7ElYAGjbBDiiDq40bak55XlBvoH5BXEF14viLbtsK3dfw6ArZrozjGwWQ9TSLaJJq4llKKzgFyts43cPHG30Jo25Chy2h7hrtBkKmc4wZ3tJX88KiWvrDUU-HPn0Rs7QxnNYc7P5725n-rmRSZGuUsJ3i65qpXoEIPJVTzIn7qAvrkycM%7Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cc71a15ef517f9d1851412d6e1fa49d2
PDF Text
Text
THE
CURRICULUM OF MODERN EDUCATION,
AND
THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF CLASSICS AND SCIENCE
TO BE REPRESENTED IN IT CONSIDERED :
BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF TWO LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE MONTHLY
EVENING MEETINGS OF THE COLLEGE OF PRECEPTORS,
APRIL 11TH, & MAY 9th, 1866.
By JOSEPH PAYNE,
LATE OF LEATHERHEAD;
FELLOW, AND ONE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENTS, OF THE COLLEGE OF PRECEPTORS,
MEMBER OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, ETC.
“ Not to know at large of things remote
From use, obscure and subtle, but to know
That which before us lies in daily life,
Is the prime wisdom: what is more is fume,
Or emptiness, or fond impertinence,
And renders us, in things that most concern,
Unpractised, unprepared, and still to seek.”
Milton.
LONDON:
VIRTUE, BROTHERS, & CO., 26, IVY LANE,
PATERNOSTER ROW.
1866.
�°So each study in its turn can give rea
sons why it should be cultivated to the utmost.
But all these very arguments are met by an
unanswerable fact, that our time is limited. It
is not possible to teach boys everything.
“ If it is attempted, the result is generally a
superficial knowledge of exceedingly little value,
and liable to the great moral objection, that it
encourages conceit and discourages hard work.
A boy who knows the general principles of the
study, without knowing its details, easily gets the
credit of knowing much, while the test of putting
his knowledge to use will quickly prove that he
knows very little. Meanwhile he acquires a dis
taste for the drudgery of details, without which
drudgery nothing worth doing ever yet was
done.”—Dr. Temple’s Answer to Questions of
the Commissioners on Public Schools.
“ If we are to choose a study which shall pre
eminently fit a man for life, it will be that which
shall best enable him to enter into the thoughts,
the feelings, the motives of his fellows.”—Ibid.
“ All education really comes from intercourse
with other minds. The desire to supply bodily
needs and to get bodily comforts would prompt
even a solitary human being (if he lived long
enough) to acquire some rude knowledge of
nature. But this would not make him more of
a man. That which supplies the perpetual spur
to the whole human race to continue incessantly
adding to our stores of knowledge; that which
refines and elevates, and does not educate merely
the moral, nor merely the intellectual faculties,
but the whole man, is our connection with each
other; and the highest study is that which most
promotes this connexion, by enlarging its sphere,
by correcting and purifying its influences, by
giving perfect and pure models of what ordinary
experience can, for the most part, show only in
adulterated and imperfect forms.”—Ibid.
“The classic life contains precisely the true
corrective for the chief defects of modern life.
The classic writers exhibit precisely that order
of virtues in which we are apt to be deficient.
They altogether show human life on a grander
scale, with less benevolence, but more patriotism;
less sentiment, but more self-control; of a lower
average of virtue, but more striking individual
examples of it; fewer small goodnesses, but more
greatness and appreciation of greatness; more
which tends to exalt the imagination and inspire
high conceptions of the capabilities of human
nature. If, as every one must see, the want of
the affinity of these studies to the modem mind
is gradually lowering them in popular estima
tion, this is but a confirmation of the need of
them, and renders it more incumbent on those
who have the power, to do their utmost to aid
in preventing their decline.”—John Stuart
Mill.
“ We would have classics and logic taught far
more really and deeply than at present, and
would add to them other studies more alien than
any which yet exist to the ‘business of the
world,’ but more germane to the great business
ofevery rational being—the strengthening and en
larging of his own intellect and character.”—Ibid.
“ In nations, as in men, in intellect as in social
condition, true nobility consists in inheriting
what is best in the possessions and character of
a line of ancestry. Those who can trace the
descent of their own ideas and their own lan
guage through the race of cultivated nations,
who can show that those whom they represent
or reverence as their parents have everywhere
been foremost in the field of thought and in
tellectual progress: these are the true nobility
of the world of mind; the persons who have
received true culture; and such it should be the
business of a liberal education to make men.”—
Anon.
“ The ancient classics would not be worse, but
better taught in th'- highest forms, did the pupil
receive a more general culture in his early
course.”—Dr. Hodgson, “Classical Instruc
tion,” an Article reprinted from the Westmin
ster Review, Oct. 1853.
" It is the early age at which classical studies
are begun that, rendering the work at once
tedious and unprofitable, necessitates so terrible
an expenditure of time, and prevents their suc
cessful prosecution. Difficulties which are now
surmounted, if at all, with infinite labour and
many tears; details which are now mastered, if
at all, by children who can have but little compre
hension of their meaning and purpose, and but
little motive to mental effort, would afford only
an easy and a pleasant exercise to minds more
mature and better prepared.”—Ibid.
“1 claim for the study of physics the recog
nition that it answers to an impulse implanted
by nature in the human constitution, and he
who would oppose such study must be prepared
to exhibit the credentials which authorize him
to contravene nature’s manifest design.”—On
the Importance of the Study of Physics as a
Branch of Education for all Classes. By
Professor Tyndall.
“Leave out the physiological sciences from
your curriculum, and you launch the student
into the world undisciplined in that science
whose subject matter would best develope his
powers of observation; ignorant of facts of the
deepest importance for his own and others’ wel
fare ; blind to the richest sources of beauty in
God’s creation; and unprovided with that belief
in a living law, and an order manifesting itself
in and through endless change and variety,
which might serve to check and moderate that
phase of despair through which, if he take an
earnest interest in social problems, he will as
suredly, sooner or later, pass.”—On the Educa
tional Value of the Natural History Sciences. By
Professor T. H. Huxley.
. “ J’aime les sciences mathfimatiques et phy
siques; chacune d’elles, 1’algfcbre, la chimie, la
botanique, est une belle application partielle de
l’esprit humain; Les Lettres. e'est Vesprit luimtme; l’6tude des lettres,Jc’estl’^ducation gfinfirale qui prepare h tout, l’iducation de l’ime.”—
Napoleon I., quoted by Dr. Hodgson.
“ Wenn uns miser Schulunterricht immer
auf das Alterthum hinweist, das Studium der
griechischen und latcinischen Sprache fordert,
so konnen wir uns Gluck wiinschen, dass diese
zu einer hoheren Cultur so nothigen Studien
I niemals riickgangig werden.”—Gothe.
�PREFACE.
The following pages contain the substance, with some alterations and
additions, of two Lectures lately delivered at the College of Preceptors, and
the writer seeks by the publication of them the suffrages of that larger audi
ence with which lies the ultimate decision in discussions of this kind.
The question of the curriculum is daily becoming more and more im
portant. The demand that it shall represent, in a far greater degree than
it has hitherto done, the wants and wishes, the active energies, and in
short the spirit, of the age, cannot be, and ought not to be, set aside.
This claim, which involves particularly the pretensions of physical science
to be represented in the curriculum, is much strengthened by the con
sideration, that science furnishes, when properly taught, a kind of educational
training of special value, as a complement to that of language. The writer has
attempted to show, that science teaches better, that is, more directly and
soundly, than any other study, how to observe, how to arrange and classify,
how to connect causes with effects, how to comprehend details under general
laws, how to estimate the practical value of facts. Having, however, dealt
out this measure of justice to science, he maintains that the difficulties
which lie in the way of the attainment of these valuable results, by means of
school education, have not yet been overcome ; and that even if they were, and
science were fully admitted into the curriculum,—which ought to be the case,
—that the classical and literary training is better adapted to the development
of the whole man than the scientific, and should therefore take the lead. In
pursuing this argument, he has been led specially to deal with two fallacies,
which, under a variety of forms, are extensively prevalent at present, and, by their
evil influence, tend very much to hinder the cause which they are, apparently,
designed to promote. The first is, That because there is so much to know in
the world, we are bound to try to make our children learn it all. The second is,
That because there is so much to do in the world, we ought to force all kinds of
business upon children’s attention beforehand, by way of preparation for it;
in other words, that the onine scibile and the omne facibile (to use a barbarous
Latin word) ought to be comprehended in every good curriculum of education.
If he has succeeded in exploding these fallacies, and in making good his own pro
position, that all true education involves, fundamentally, training, and training of
a kind that is quite incompatible with the claims of any system in which accumu-
B 2
�IV
lation is the first principle, and special preparation the second, he hopes to
gain the thanks of all judicious and really competent authorities in science; of
all who mean by teaching science, training the mind to scientific method, to
habits of investigation, and the diligent search after truth.
There can be little doubt that the recent Report on the results of classical
teaching in our public schools, and especially in the case of Eton, has done
much to strengthen the cause of those who wish to see a reform in the curri
culum. Few men, perhaps, at the head of public institutions have ever stood
in a more humiliating position than that occupied, about four years ago, by the
Head-Master of Eton, who, being under examination before the Commission on
Public Schools, could only say, in reply to the following pungent remarks
of Lord Clarendon, the chairman, that he was “ sorry —thus allowing the full
force of the charges implied. “Nothing can be worse,” said his Lordship,
“than this state of.things, when we find modern languages,geography,history,
chronology, and everything else which a well-educated English gentleman
ought to know, given up, in order that the full time should be devoted to the
classics; and at the same time we are told, that the boys go up to Oxford not
only not proficient, but in a lamentable state of deficiency with respect to the
classics.”
It is not to be wondered at, that those who were before discontented with
the established course of study in our public schools, became, after such a state
ment of facts, amply borne out as it was by the evidence, so indignant, as to
demand, in the interests of philanthropy as well as science, that the system
which had borne such fruits should be not only degraded, but deposed. This
violent reaction cannot, however, be sustained. The abuse must not be con
founded with the use. It may be true that very little besides classics is taught
at Eton, and that they are not learnt; but this is no argument against either
the theory or the practice of classical instruction. But while the present
writer, who has had long experience in teaching, defends generally that theory
and practice, he believes that the time is come for such a modification of its
working, at least in middle-class schools, as will admit of the honourable intro
duction of science into the curriculum. It is then as a friend, and not an enemy,
to science, that he has endeavoured to clear the ground of some of the frivolous
and damaging arguments which theorists have imported into the discussion,
and to plead that it shall be so taught as to make it a real mental exercise.
Thus introduced as a coordinate discipline, it would prove a most valuable ally
in education, and take its proper place among the great elements which are
moulding the civilisation of the age.
4, Kildare Gardens, Bayswater,
July 1, 1866.
�THE CURRICULUM OF MODERN EDUCATION,
AND THE
RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF CLASSICS AND SCIENCE TO BE REPRESENTED
IN IT CONSIDERED.
From tlie time when the idea was first con out by Wisdom to build her house upon. The
*
ceived of interfering with the natural liberty structure, however, then, and for a thousand
of children, and setting them down on benches years after, remained unfinished ; and even at
or on the ground to “learn,” the question of the present day it must be acknowledged that
what they should be taught could not fail to Wisdom’s house of education is by no means
be one of great interest. An inquiry into the distinguished for symmetrical beauty and
details of the various curricula arranged for completeness. In the rivalry which, not un
the purpose of instruction by the wise men of naturally, arose between these two courses of
the different nations of antiquity, would no study, it would appear that the physical or
doubt elicit much that would be valuable for strict sciences were usually defeated; for,
the purpose of a writer on the History of either from indolence or distaste, the founda
Education, but opens up far too wide a field tion of the Trivium, to which precedence in
for our present limits. It may, however, be education was considered due, was generally
observed generally, in passing, that the scien so long in laying that the pupil rarely reached
tific or practical element seems to have pre what was then treated as the higher course.
vailed more in the primary schools of Egypt, Practically, indeed, in the lower schools, no
India, Phoenicia, and Persia ; the linguistic attempt was made to go much beyond
or literary in those of Judea, China, Greece, “ Grammar,” which, in connection with the
and Rome. Exception may, no doubt, be study of Latin alone at first, and subsequently
taken to this general statement, which, how of Greek, with a little reading, writing, and
ever, I must leave in its vagueness, without arithmetic, formed the common course for
even a momentary effort to estimate the com English boys in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and
parative value of the various curricula in their sixteenth centuries. If the curriculum of school
relation to the spirit and character of the education is to be considered as reflecting the
respective nations which adopted them ; and spirit of the age, which, however, is not, as we
without even contrasting, as educational pro see in our own case, a fair criterion, it would
ducts, Plato, the pupil of Socrates, on the one appear that physical science was in those
side, and Alexander the Great, the pupil of times, if not altogether neglected, at least
Aristotle, on the other.
treated with indifference; for not only in
Descending, then, as at a leap, to the com schools, but even in the universities, the quamencement of the Middle Ages, in Europe, we drivials were, as Harrison remarks, “ smallie
find the omne scibile comprehended, for the pur regarded.”} This state of things, continuing
pose of teaching, in two groups; the Trivium, almost unaltered to the seventeenth century,
consisting of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric ; roused the indignation of Milton, who denounces
and the Quadrivium, of Arithmetic, Music, Geo
metry, and Astronomy. These subjects were de * “Wisdom hath builded her house: she hath
hewn out her seven pillars.” (Prov. ix. 1.)
signated by Cassiodorus, the literary adviser and I f Harrison’s “Description of England,” prefixed to
friend of Theodoric, the “ seven pillars ” hewn Holinshed’s Chronicle, 1577.
�“ the haling and dragging of our choicest and commended, too, by their much closer connec
hopefullest wits to that asinine feast of sow tion with the interests and happiness of mankind.
thistles and brambles, which is commonly set The fact cannot be denied, that our general
before them as all the food and entertainment school curriculum includes much that is not
of their tenderest and most docible age
practically available in the world for which it
while Cowley, rather later, pleads for the is by theory a preparation, and excludes much
initiation of children into “ the knowledge that is ; that it rests mainly on the traditions
of things as well as words,” and for the “ in and experience of the past; and that it does
fusing knowledge and language at the same not appear to keep pace, pari passu, with the
time into them.” Both these eminent men actual life, the feelings, and hopes, and aspi
constructed schemes, on paper, for revolution rations of the present. If these admissions,
izing the existing curriculum in accordance with literally interpreted, are to be considered
their views. Inasmuch, however, as they were sufficient causes for condemnation, the ques
in no respect themselves the fruit of the system tion is at once decided, and society has only
they advocated, nor recommended it (I allude to order the delinquent for execution without
specially to Milton) by their own practice, delay. Before, however, the matter is thus
the public generally seems to have attached summarily disposed of, the defendant should,
little importance to their views, and certainly and indeed must, in all fairness, be allowed to
showed no desire to adopt them.
plead his cause at the bar of reason and com
After their days, the established system was mon sense. In the case of this as of other
occasionally complained of (notably by Locke, time-honoured institutions, it will probably be
and Clarke, and more recently by Sydney found that we are not so very much wiser
Smith); but within the last fifty years, various than our fathers as we may at first sight be
causes have tended to strengthen the assailants disposed to flatter ourselves. The very fact of
and give piquancy to the strife ; and at the pre the antiquity of an institution is, at all events,
sent moment, more than ever before, the advo a respectable plea, and should not be wantonly
cates of the old and new systems respectively rejected. It must, however, be admitted that
are pertinaciously presenting their claims to the this plea has not in our day the strength which
arbitration of the public. The maintenance it once had. Old institutions, of whatever
of a hostile feeling is, however, much to be kind, are nowrequired to prove that they deserve
deprecated. This question may be, it is to live, if that privilege is to be allowed them.
hoped, dispassionately discussed; and for
In the case before us, we have an extreme
myself, though advocating the retention of party of reformers, who without hesitation
much of the old system, I am, as will be seen, declare that the proper place for Classical
strongly impressed with the great claims of instruction in the curriculum is no place at
science, and disposed to recommend a fair all—who would not only dethrone it from the
and liberal compromise. I cannot but think position it has so long held, but thrust it
that a curriculum framed in such a way ignominiously forth. This is the not unnatural
as to retain the sound discipline of the old reaction against the unwarrantable assumption
classical course, and to embrace the vivifying on the other side, that the proper place of
influences of the scientific element, would prove classics in the curriculum is the whole cur
advantageous to both. Science, judiciously riculum ; that they alone constitute “ learn
and thoroughly taught, supplies a training of a ing
and that the most honourable and
different kind from that supplied by classics, lucrative positions in society ought to be
and of a kind especially adapted to correct the allotted, as a matter of course, to those who
defects of the latter. This has been, indeed, hold their certificate. Exaggerated preten
to some extent, admitted by the general intro sions, however, on whichever side they are
duction of mathematics into the curriculum. held, only injure the cause of those who main
It will, however, be shown that pure mathe tain them, and in the present case are espe
matics are not sufficiently comprehensive for cially unsuitable. For, as between the rival
the purpose. The observational and experi claims of language and literature on the one
mental sciences, besides being more generally side, and science on the other, there is surely
inviting as a study than mathematics, are re much to be said for both so true and so reason-
�able as to claim the respectful attention of all
fair and competent judges. It must never be
forgotten that out of those ages in which
science, properly so called, was unknown,
came forth the great teachers of mankind, the
pioneers, nay more, the efficient agents, by
words and deeds, in originating and carrying
on the civilization of the human race. /Phis
important work was accomplished by men
utterly unacquainted with geology, the steamengine, the electric telegraph, spectrum
analysis, or the dynamic theory of heat.
Without these means and appliances, or even
an atom of the spirit of which they are the
fruit,—without any of the enthusiasm of
modern physical philosophy,—statesmen and
warriors, heroes, patriots, and artists, of whom
all ages are proud, have so lived as to leave an
imperishable name behind them. Whether
the age of science will produce grander results,
has yet to be proved. On the other hand, it
is most reasonable that science too should, in
our day especially, claim its proper place
in education as a civilizing agent. It may
point with pride to what it has done and is
doing, and may without rebuke exclaim : “If
you need memorials of my power and influence,
look around you ; the results are everywhere.
Nay more, if, instead of mere details, dry facts,
and practical applications, you have a taste
for sublime speculations and theories, I can
furnish you with views into the distant and
the past almost unequalled for elevation, range,
and depth, and fraught with the profouudest
interest to the present and all future genera
tions.” We may therefore, without slavish
humility, bow reverentially before both these
claimants on our homage, and denounce
impartially the zealots and fanatics on either
side,—the men who audaciously, declare that sci
entific instruction is “ worthless,” and equally
those who stigmatize the classics as “ useless,”
—in the curriculum of modern education.
In dealing with the subject of my lecture,
I propose in the first place, to consider
generally the curriculum of modern education
for the middle classes, and to discuss some ot
the plans proposed for its reformation; and
secondly, to advocate the claims of classical
instruction to continue to hold the leading
place in it as a mental discipline.
The object we have in view is to discuss
the curriculum of modern education, as
far as the middle classes of society are con
cerned— excluding, on the one hand, those
whose instruction must, from circumstances,
be limited to the barest elements of learn
ing ; and those, on the other hand, whose
course is intended to terminate in a uni
versity career. The question then is—con
sidering the age in which we live, with its
immense accumulation, and wonderful appli
cations, of knowledge; considering too that
the longest life is too short for securing for
the individual man any large portion of this,
which constitutes the treasury of the race; and
that the immature faculties of the child can
grasp only a very limited portion of that
which is ultimately attained by the mau—
whether we do wisely in giving up any consi
derable portion of the small space of time
available for acquisition, to the attainment of
a kind of knowledge which appears, in com
parison with scientific and general information,
to be only slightly demanded by the wants
and the wishes of the age. If it is neces
sary, or even important and desirable, that
we should all attempt to know all things,
this question is at once settled by the exi
gencies of the case. Every moment of the
time devoted to instruction must, on that
assumption, be given up to the earnest and
unremitting pursuit of the “ things that lie
about in daily life;” and everything which
impedes or interferes with that pursuit must
be regarded as impertinent. It is, however,
perfectly clear that the attempt to force the
individual man to keep up with the intel
lectual march of the human race, must end in
utter disappointment; and, moreover, involves
a fatal misconception of the object which all
true education should. have in view. It can
not be too frequently repeated, that develop
ment and training, and not the acquisition
of knowledge, however valuable in itself, is
the true and proper end of elementary educa
tion, nor too strongly insisted on, that
he who grasps too much holds feebly, or,
as the French pithily express it, qui trop
em.brasse mal etreint. The fact that there is
a vast store of knowledge in the world is no
more a reason why I should acquire it all, than
the fact that there is an immense store of food
is a reason why I should eat it all. We may
mourn over the limitation of our powers, but
as our fate in this respect is quite inevitable, it
�is our duty, as rational creatures, to submit to sented in the former. The other principle
it, and to be satisfied with doing, if not all seems to be, that as men are often found
that we fondly wish, yet all that we can, and, “ unpractised, unprepared, and still to seek,”
what is more important, as well as we can. in regard to the circumstances in which they
1 cannot but think that the protest of the are actually placed in life, we should anticipate
high-minded and conscientious men who are this difficulty by making children acquainted
in our day aiming at the reform of the beforehand with “ the leading kinds of activity
school curriculum, would be much more whicji constitute human life”—in other words,
influential with the public if they would keep with all varieties of practical business. In
closely to the true issue in discussing this enforcing both these views, touching appeals
question. It is most desirable, certainly, that ad misericordiam are made by their supporters,
there should be a thorough reform; but it is based, first, on the cruelty of withholding from
equally desirable that the reform should be the child that knowledge of science which has
established on a sound basis, and that both become the inheritance of the race, and which
parties should co-operate in arriving at a wise he so much desires to have ; and again, on the
decision on this point.
criminal neglect of his teachers in not secur
It is much to be regretted that so many of ing him, by ample knowledge of practical
those who have handled the subject of the business, against the dangers into which, from
curriculum in the interests of philanthropy, ignorance and inexperience, he is not only
should be disqualified from treating it judi likely, but certain to fall. The theory, then,
ciously by a want of practical acquaintance with stated in its bare simplicity, is, that the boy
education. Very much at their ease, they con is to be provided by his education, first, with
struct airy and fantastic theories, founded not all scientific knowledge; and secondly, with
on what is practicable, but what is desirable ; all practical knowledge, as his proper equip
recommend them earnestly, as if they were ment for the battle of life.
the genuine fruits of experience, and too fre
That I may not, however, be suspected
quently reproach the hard-working teachers, of misrepresenting these theoretical views of
who, however much they may admire such the curriculum, I will now endeavour to ex
theories, cannot by any amount of labour hibit them, as taken from the works in which
realize them, and therefore feel themselves they are to be found.
aggrieved at having their actual educational
In the first number of the “ Westmin
product unfairly brought into comparison with ster Review,” published in 1824, we find
the highly-coloured results promised by the an article mainly devoted to the explanation
theorist. These writers, men, if you will, of and enforcement of Mr. Bentham’s “ Chrestobenevolent hearts, certainly of lively imagina mathia”* as a scheme of instruction which
tions, evince far too little sympathy with -(to use the reviewer’s words) should “ compre
the actual work of the practical teacher, with his hend the various branches of education which
arduous, long continued, little appreciated toils, are spread over the whole field of knowledge,
his never-ending struggle against the natural giving to each its due share of importance
volatility, ignorance, dulness, obstinacy, and with a view to the greatest possible sum of
sometimes depravity, of his pupils ; and com practical benefit.” It is curious to see the
prehend not the true vital organisation of that course of study proposed by Bentham, and
“ pleasing, anxious (professional) being,” which which has been extended by the enthusiastic
perhaps, after all, no earnest teacher ever resigns Mr. Simpson, in his work entitled “ The Philo
without some “ longing, lingering look behind. ’ ’ sophy of Education.”
Two leading principles seem to charac
The subjects proposed for the Chrestomathic
terize most of the theories which have been, in
modern times, proposed for the reform of the
* “ Chrestomathia: being a Collection of Papers
old curriculum. The first is, that the cur explanatory of the Design of an Institution proposed
to be set on foot, under the name of the Chrestoma
riculum ought to be considered as a counter thic Day-Schools, or Chrestomathic School, for the
part or reflex of the world of knowledge to Extension of the New System of Instruction to the
Higher Branches of
of the
which it is introductory, and that therefore Middling and HigherLearning, for the use Jeremy
Ranks of Life.” By
the omne scibile of the latter should be repre Bentham, Esq. London: 1816.
�9
curriculum of study in the case of boys, and
girls too, “ between the ages of seven and four
teen,” are as follows :—
Elementary Arts.—Reading, writing, arith
metic.
1 st Stage.—Mineralogy, botany, zoology, geo
graphy, geometry (definitions
only), history, chronology,
drawing.
2nd Stage.—Same subjects, with mechanics,
hydrostatics, hydraulics, pneu
matics, acoustics, optics.
Chemistry, mineral, vegetable,
animal.
Meteorology, magnetism, elec
tricity, galvanism, balistics.
Archaeology, statistics.
English, Latin, Greek, French,
and German grammars.
3rc? Stage.—Subjects of previous stages, and
mining, geology, land-survey
ing, architecture, husbandry,
including the theory of vegeta
tion and gardening.
Physical economics—i. e., the ap
plication of mechanics and che
mistry to domestic manage
ment, involving “maximization
of bodily comfort in all its
shapes, minimization of bodily
discomfort in all its shapes,”
biography.
4.th Stage.—Hygiastics (art of preserving and
restoring health), comprising
physiology, anatomy, patho
logy, nosology, dietetics, mate
ria medica, prophylactics (art
of warding off evils), surgery,
therapeutics, zohygiastics (art
of taking care of animals).
Phthisozoics (art of destroying
noxious animals : vermin kill
ing, ratcatching, &c.).
5th Stage.—Geometry (with demonstrations),
algebra, mathematical geogra
phy, astronomy.
Technology, or arts and manu
factures in general.
Bookkeeping, or the art of regis
tration or recordation.
Commercial book-keeping.
Note-taking.
Such is the scheme of the Chrcstomatbia,
which designedly omits (as Mr .’Bentham tells
us) gymnastic exercises, fine arts, applications
of mechanics and chemistry, belles lettres, and
moral arts and sciences. These are omitted
on various grounds which I have no time to
specify, except to mention one, which might
indeed have very suitably excluded five-sixths
at least of those enumerated—“time of life too
early.”
Mr. Simpson, approving of the whole of the
above curriculum, thought it still incomplete,
and therefore introduced the department of
Moral Science omitted by Bentham, as a
6th Stage.—History, government, commerce.
Political economy.
Philosophy of the human mind.
Risum teneatis, amici! Was anything more
extraordinary ever proposed in the whole his
tory of man ? This imposing display of the
triumphs of the entire human race is actually
presented as a curriculum of study for children
between seven and fourteen years of age 1
Such is the scheme lauded by a writer who
complains that “ hitherto the education proper
for civil and active life has been neglected, and
nothing has been done to enable those who are
to conduct the affairs of the world to carry
them on in a manner worthy of the age and
country in which they live, by communicating
to them the knowledge and the spirit of their
age and country.” This is the panacea, then,
proposed by the Chrestomathic school for the
cure of the educational maladies of the day.
Education, according to this view, is to con
sist in the administration of infinitesimal doses
of knowledge: a little drop of this, a pinch of
that, an atom of the third article, and so on ;
the names and technicalities of a great range
of subjects, and mastery and power over none.
Comment on such a scheme is unnecessary.
It condemns itself, as a method of teaching
superficiality and sciolism on system. Is
there any connection between such a course
and the “complete and generous education”
(these are Milton’s words) that “ fits a man to
perform justly, skilfully, and magnanimously
all the offices, both private and public, of peace
and war”? Are we not rather injuring than
aiding true mental development, and perhaps
moral too, by pretending to teach the sciences
when all the while we are teaching little beyond
their names ? Is such a scheme as this to super
sede the sound instruction and invigorating dis-
�10
eipline of the old school ? Is this the desidera
tum so eagerly looked for as a means of pro
ducing men capable of carrying on the affairs
of the world in “a manner worthy of the age and
country in which we live ”? I quite agree with
the most advanced of the reformers in ques
tion as to the need of reform ; but I hope they
will agree with me that this is not the direction
in which it is to be promoted, and that if the
new crusade is to be successful in its objects,
Messrs. Bentham and Simpson must not be
permitted to head the movement.
Another theoretical writer on modern edu
cation is Mr. Herbert Spencer, who, in his
work entitled “Education, Intellectual, Moral,
and Physical,” has presented us with a scheme
—evolved apparently out of the depths of his
own consciousness; for he does not profess to
have any practical experience as a teacher or
schoolmaster—so ingenious, and pretty, and
complete, that one can only sigh over the
limited capacity of human nature, which will,
it is to be feared, for ever prevent its being
realised. While agreeing for the most part
with Mr. Bentham, that a child can and ought
to learn—at least, what he calls learning—an
immense number of subjects, he insists with
great earnestness upon the principle (which,
if rightly interpreted, no one questions), that
education should prepare the pupil for the
duties of life; or, as he styles it, for “ the
right ruling of conduct in all directions, and
under all circumstances.” This, as he remarks,
—and everyone will agree with him,—is the
“ general problem, which comprehends every
special problemand he goes on further to
tell us, that the solution of it involves our
knowing “ in what way to treat the body; in
what way to treat the mind ; in what way to
manage our affairs ; in what way to bring up
a family; in what way to behave as a citizen;
and in what way to utilise those sources of
happiness which nature supplies; how to use
our faculties to the greatest advantage of our
selves and others; how to live completely.
And this being the great thing needful for us
to learn, is by consequence the great thing
which education has to teach.”
This is an epitome of Mr. Spencer’s views
on the curriculum, and it appears to be impos
sible to satisfy the conditions of his theory
by anything short of special preparation for
all the contingencies of life. My limits will
not allow of a close investigation of arguments
and illustrations, spread over nearly sixty
pages of his book; but a practical school
master has surely some right to inquire,
whether he is serious in adducing, as evidences
of defect in the school curriculum, nume
rous instances of persons injuring their eye
sight by over-study, and their limbs by over-ex
ercise ; of others suffering “ from heart-disease,
consequent on a rheumatic fever that fol
lowed reckless exposureand again, of
“ the engineer who misapplies his formulae for
the strength of materials, and builds a bridge
that breaks downof the shipbuilder who,
“ by adhering to the old model, is outsailed
by one who builds on the mechanically-jus
tified wave-line principle;” of the bleacher,
the dyer, the sugar-refiner, the farmer,
who fail more or less, because unacquainted
with chemistry ; and notably of the mining
speculators, who ruin themselves from igno
rance of geology; and the constructors of
electro-magnetic engines, “ who might have
had better balances at their bankers,” if they
had understood “ the general law of the cor
relation, and equivalence of forces.” Are all
these sad delinquencies, and many more,
recounted with terrible accuracy by Mr. Spen
cer, fairly to be laid to lack of service and
duty and sense in the schoolmaster ? Ought
the elementary schoolmaster—that is the real
question—to have furnished all hispupilsoffrom
seven to fourteen years of age with the know
ledge, and judgment, and common sense, and
experience, which are the proper safeguards
against the failures I have enumerated ? I
answer distinctly, that he is not responsible;
and I might say this much more strongly, but
that I respect Mr. Spencer’s earnestness and
true sincerity of purpose. But Mr. Spencer, who
is no schoolmaster himself, having, it would
appear, a most exalted opinion of the omnipo
tent and omniscient faculties of that func
tionary, demands still something more of him,
and regarding it as “an astonishing fact, that
not one word of instruction on the treatment
of offspring is ever given to those who will by
and by be parents,” that is, given by the
schoolmaster, lays that obligation also upon
him. Here too, it appears to me, the prac
tical schoolmaster has a right to ask, very
specifically, what kind of information “on the
treatment of offspring” Mr. Spencer would
�11
himself propose to give, as a sortof model school inefficient and enervating. General truths, to
lesson, to a child of twelve or fourteen years be of due and permanent use, must be earned.’’
of age ? The child is, to be sure, in a certain
The same principle would seem to decide
sense, “the father of the man’’; but it is coming the question of special preparation. The ex
down rather sharply upon him to apply this perience of those who have gone before us
literally, and make him leave his tops and cannot supersede our own ; and no conceivable
balls so early in life, and set about this unsea improvement, therefore, in the curriculum will
sonable preparation for the duties of paternity. ever provide for “ the right ruling of conduct
The general conclusion, then, from our re in all directions, under all circumstances ;” or,
view of Mr. Spencer’s theory is, that its due in other words, furnish a child beforehand
satisfaction involves the assumption that every with the mental and moral powers which are
man is to be his own doctor, lawyer, architect, to be developed in the actual life of the man.
bailiff, tailor, and, I suppose,—clergyman; so It is by living that we learn to live.
that the Chrestomathic scheme, which required
I have already suggested, that development
the child to learn the omne scibile, is supple and training, not the acquisition of knowledge,
mented, as not being comprehensive enough, however valuable in itself, is the true and
by Mr. Spencer’s, for learning also the omne proper end of elementary education. In a
*
facibile; and both must, I fear, be condemned, I general way it may be asserted that the former
not only as being utterly impracticable, (though is the main tenet of the old or conservative,
that might beasufficient objection,) butas being the latter of the new or reforming school. We
based on a total misconception of what ele shall have to dwell at some length on this
mentary education ought to be.t
point, that we may be prepared to recognise
The fact is, that however captivating to the the respective claims of various subjects to be
imagination the idea may be of communicating admitted into the curriculum. It is perfectly
to our pupil those immense stores of knowledge, true that neither view of necessity excludes
the possession of which distinguishes the pre the other. Any subject, however suitable in
sent from all previous ages, it is one which, itself for the discipline of the pupil, may be so
when brought to the test of experience, proves taught as to involve no good training ; and a
utterly illusory. A higher power than that subject presumptively unsuitable may, by the
of either the theoretical educationist, or the skill of the teacher, be made to yield the
practical schoolmaster, has ordained that into happiest fruits. Still the prominence given
the kingdom of knowledge, as into the king to these respective features in theory must
dom of heaven, we must enter as little children. materially affect the practice founded on them.
We must begin at the beginning, and learn I need not refer to the very etymology of the
the prima elementa each for himself, as all word “ education” to support the more oldchildren before us have done, gaining little ad fashioned view of the case. All will allow
vantage as individuals from the achievements that it means training or development; but
which science has effected for our race. We I would dwell for a moment on the meaning of
find, too, that if, from a desire to spare our the cognate term“ instruction,”in support of the
pupil the labour of learning fact after fact in same argument, and also to show that a real
apparently endless succession, we frame com and judicious teaching of science, not a ran
pendious formulae, rules, and general prin dom gathering together of scraps of “ useful
ciples, founded on other men’s mental expe knowledge,” does indeed involve a genuine dis
rience, and endeavour to feed his mind with cipline of the mind. The original meaning
them, they prove, in the early stage of instruc of instruere is to heap up, or pile up, or
tion, utterly indigestible, and minister no put together in a heap generally, and seems
proper nourishment for him. Mr. Spencer, in somewhat to countenance the Chrestomathic
another part of his book, justly remarks: notion ; but the secondary meaning, and that
“ To give the net product of inquiry, without with which we are more concerned, is “ to put
the inquiry that leads to it, is found to be both together in order, to build or construct”; so
that instruction is the orderly arrangement
* This phrase is, I am aware, non-classical. It is,
and disposition of knowledge, a branch of
however, to be found in Ducange.
t See Appendix, Note A.
mental discipline which all must acknowledge
�12
to be of great importance and value. But rate, and mature all the faculties, so as to
heaping bricks together, and building a house exhibit them in that harmonious combination
with them, are two very different things. The which is at once the index and the result of
orderly arrangement of facts in the mind im manly growth. In order to gain the ends I
plies a knowledge of their relation to each have specified, or indeed any considerable
other ; and, if carried out to a certain extent, number of them, it is essential that the studies
furnishes the ground-work for the establish embraced in the training course should be
ment of those general laws which constitute few. We cannot hope to have, in the early
what is properly called science. The knowledge, stage of life, both quantity and quality. In
however, of these mutual relations is gained by giving a preference to the latter, we do but
quiet, earnest brooding over facts, viewing them consult the exigencies of the case. At the
in every kind of light, comparing them care same time, it may be hoped that, because the
fully together for the detection of resemblances aim is to enrich and prepare the soil, the ulti
*
and differences, classifying them, experi mate harvest will be proportionately bountiful.
menting upon them, and so on. Allowing,
I have said that the subjects to be studied
then, to science, properly so called, all in the training course should be few. But I
that can be claimed for it as a con proceed further, and maintain that for the
stituent of the curriculum—and of its im purpose of real discipline it is advisable—nay,
mense value in education I shall have to even necessary—to concentrate the energies
speak presently—we must explode, definitely for a long period together on some one general
and finally, the notion that these valuable subject, and make that for a time the leading
results can be elicited by frittering away the feature, the central study of the course—
powers of the mind on a great variety of keeping others in subordination to it. By
subjects. Nor must we be led away by the giving this degree of prominence to some par
frequently meaningless clamour for “ useful ticular branch of instruction, we may hope to
knowledge.” Knowledge which may be un have it studied to such an extent, so closely,
questionably useful to some persons may so accurately, so soundly, so completely, that
not be useful at all to others; therefore, it may become a real possession to the pupil
although education is to be a preparation —a source of vital power, which the mind
for after life, yet it is to be a general, not “ will not willingly let die.” The concentration
a professional, preparation, and cannot pro of mind and range of research necessary for
vide for minute and special contingencies. this purpose obviously involve many of the
The object of education is to form the man, advantages I have recently enumerated. In
not the baker—the man, not the lawyer—the this way, too, the pupil will become fully con
man, not the civil engineer.
scious of the difference between knowing a
What then, we may now inquire, should be the thing and knowing something about it, and
main features of a training, as distinguished will be forcibly impressed with the superiority
from an accumulating, system of instruction ? of the former kind of knowledge. This con
It should, I conceive, aim at quickening and viction is of no small importance; for it gives
strengthening the powers of observation and him a clear, experimental appreciation of the
memory, and forming habits of careful agency—the measure and kind of intellectual
and persevering attention; it should habitu effort—by which the complete and accurate
ate the pupil to distinguish points of difference knowledge was gained, and thus can hardly
and recognise those of resemblance, to analyse fail to exercise a valuable influence upon his
and investigate, to arrange and classify. It character. He who has learned by experience
should awaken and invigorate the understand the difficulty of obtaining a thorough mastery
ing, mature the reason, chasten while it kindles of a subject, has made no trifling advance in
the imagination, exercise the judgment and re
fine the taste. It should cultivate habits of * The opinion of Locke confirms this view. His
words are:—“ The business of education is not, as I
order and precision, and of spontaneous, inde think, to perfect the learner in any of the sciences,
pendent, and long continued application. It but to give his mind that freedom, and disposition,
and those habits which may enable him to attain
should, in short, be a species of mental gym every part of knowledge himself.” (Some Thoughts
nastics, fitted to draw forth, exercise, invigo concerning Education.)
F
-
�13
the knowledge of himself. He has tested his preceded it; he must also keep it in recollec
power of struggling with difficulties, and ac tion, that he may observe its connection with
quired in the contest that command over his what follows. When he encounters difficulties
faculties, and that habit of sustained and which he cannot at the moment solve, he must
vigorous application, which will ensure success retain them in mind until the clue to their
in any undertaking. He who has only begun solution is gained. He must often retrace his
a study, or advanced but little in it, is a steps with the experience he has acquired in ad
stranger to that consciousness of strength and vancing, and then advance again with the added
range of mental vision which are involved in knowledge gained in his retrogression. It is only
the cultivation of it to a high point. The by thus wrestling—agonising, as it were—with
knowledge, thus thoroughly acquired and pos a subject, that we eventually subdue it, and
sessed as a familiar instrument by the pupil, make it ours, and a part of us. By such or
becomes not only a powerful auxiliary to his analogous processes, constantly and patiently
further attainments, but a high standard to pursued, we rise at last to the highest gene
which he may continually refer them.
*
ralisations ; so that a knowledge of the pheno
One of the chief reasons why the study of one mena of the material world is digested into
thing, one subject, or one book, is so valuable Science, a knowledge of the facts and matter
a discipline, is that the matter thus sub of language is elaborated into Learning, and a
mitted to the mind’s action forms a whole, knowledge and intimate appreciation of the
and by degrees reacts on the mind itself, and facts of human life ripens into Wisdom.
'creates within it the idea of unity and harmony. Everyone will bear me out in the remark,
Suppose, for instance, that we read a book that it is from those few books that we
with the view of thoroughly studying and read most carefully — that we “chew and
mastering it. We find, as a consequence of digest,” to use Bacon’s words—that we pe
the unity of thought and expression pervading ruse again and again with still increasing
it, that one part explains another, that what interest—that we take to our bosom a3 friends
is hinted at in one page is amplified in the and counsellers; it is from these that we are
next, that the matter of the first few sentences is conscious of deriving real nourishment for the
the nucleus (the oak in the acorn, as it were) of mind. Nor is it perhaps rash to assert that
the entire work. Thus the beginning of the book the general tendency, in our day, to dissipate
throws light upon the end, which the end in its the attention on all sorts of books, on all sorts
turn reflectsupon the beginning. He who studies of subjects, which just flash before the mind,
in this way must carefully weigh each word, and excite it for a moment, leave a vague impres
estimate its value in the sentence of which it is sion, and are gone, is stamping a character
a part, and its bearing on those which have upon the age which will render nugatory the
well-meant efforts which have of late been
made for the enlightenment of the popular
* The above argument is powerfully confirmed in
the following passage from an “ Introductory Lecture” mind, and the extension of useful knowledge.
by Professor De Morgan, delivered at University It is, I say, characteristic of the age, that we
College, October 17,1837:—
“ When the student has occupied his time in learn emasculate and enfeeble our powers by the
ing a moderate portion of many different things, vain attempt to know everything which every
what has he acquired—extensive knowledge or useful
habits? Even if he can be said to have varied body else knows ; and learn, in conformity to
learning, it will not long be true of him, for nothing the fashion of the times, even to feel it as a
flies so quickly as half-digested knowledge; and when reproach that we have not “dipped into,” or
this is gone, there remains but a slender portion of
useful power. A small quantity of learning quickly “skimmed over,” or “glanced at” (very
evaporates from a mind which never held any learn significant phrases) all the articles in all the
ing, except in small quantities; and the intellectual
philosopher can perhaps explain the following pheno newspapers, magazines, and reviews of the
menon :—that men who have given deep attention to day. We indolently allow ourselves to be
one or more liberal studies, can learn to the end of
their lives, and are able to retain and apply very carried on, in spite of our silent protest,
small quantities of other kinds of knowledge; while against our real convictions, with the shallow
those who have never learnt much of any one thing tide which is sweeping over the land; and,
seldom acquire new knowledge after they attain to
years of maturity, and frequently lose the greater' inasmuch as we do so, are neutralising the
part of that which they once possessed.” (p. 12.)
real interests of the cause we profess to be
�14
advocating, and preventing the formation
of valuable and useful judgments on any
subject whatever. If you consider with me
that this general dissipation is an evil, you
will also sympathise with the desire to prevent
the organization and establishment of the prin
ciple in the curriculum of elementary education.
A thousand times better, in my opinion, to
have the old hum-drum monotony, the cease
less drill, which ended only in preparing the
faculties to work to some purpose, when they
did work, on the problems of life, than the
counterfeit knowledge which can give an opi
nion on every subject because substantially
uninformed on any.
It is not, perhaps, too much to assert, that
concentration of mind on a few subjects is,
and ever has been, the only passport to excel
lence. All the great literary and scientific
men of all ages, whose opinions we value,
whose judgments are received as the dictates
of wisdom and authority, have acted on the
conviction, that the powers of the mind are
strengthened by concentration, and weakened
by dissipation.
*
The practical inference from the foregoing
remarks is, that in order to train the mind
usefully, concentration, and not accumulation,
must be our guiding principle; in other words,
we must direct the most strenuous efforts of
our pupils to the complete and full comprehen
sion of some one subject as an instrument of
intellectual discipline.
The next consideration, then, is, what the
subject submitted to this accurate and com
plete study ought to be. And here we come
again nearly to the point at which we set out,
and must now for ourselves renew the friendly
strife between the “ trivials” and the “ quadrivials” once more. I say “ friendly,” because
the claims of both are so reasonable, that it
really ought not to be very difficult to adjust
them, and no angry feeling therefore ought to
accompany the discussion. We have left the
theorists behind, and are now to settle such
questions as practical and experienced men,
with reference to their real merits, judicially,
and with some degree of authority.
On the general subject of the curriculum, I
will quote some remarks which I have lately
met with in a pamphlet by an able American
writer, apparently acquainted by experience
with his subject.
*
He is strongly opposed to
what we usually call the Classical System,
but candidly admits that its defenders have
hitherto had greatly the advantage of their
opponents in the line of argument they have
pursued. “Disagree with them,” he says,
“ as you may as to what studies go to make up
a liberal education, you must go to them for a
true definition of that training of mind in
which a liberal education consists.” As he is
one of the ablest advocates of the claims of
science, we may listen to what he says on
its behalf as a part of school education.
He assumes, then, as axioms these following
propositions:—
“1. That in the Science and Art of edu
cation we must study and follow nature,—that
we shall only be successful as far as we do.
“ 2. That there is a certain natural order
in the development of the human faculties ; and
that a true system of education will follow,
not run counter to, that order.
“ 3. That we may divide the faculties of the
mind, for the purposes of education, into
observing and reflective; and that in the order
of development the observing faculties come
first.
* See some very interesting illustrations in
D’Israeli’s “ Curiosities of Literature,” in the essay
entitled, “ The Man of One Book.” To these may be
added, as an instructive, though somewhat extra
vagant, specimen of the non-multa-sed-muUwn
principle advocated in the text, the following, taken
from the “ Foreign Quarterly Review” for 1841:—
“ Porpora, an Italian teacher of music, having
conceived an affection for one of his pupils, asked
him if he had courage to pursue indefatigably a
course which he would point out, however tiresome
it might appear. Upon receiving an answer in the
affirmative, he noted upon a page of ruled paper, the
diatonic and chromatic scales, ascending and descend
ing with leaps of a third, fourth, &c., to acquire the
intervals promptly, with shakes, turns, appoggiature,
and various passages of vocalisation. This leaf
employed master and pupil for a year; the follow
ing year was bestowed upon it; the third year there
was no talk of changing it: the pupil began to
murmur, but was reminded of his promise. A fourth
year elapsed, then a fifth, and every day came the
eternal leaf. At the sixth it was not done with, but
lessons of articulation, pronunciation, and declama
tion were added to the practice. At the end of this
year, however, the scholar, who still imagined that
he was but at the elements, was much surprised
when his master exclaimed, ‘ Go, my son; thou hast
* “ Classical and Scientific Studies, and the Great
nothing more to learn; thou art the first singer of
Italy, and of the world.’ He said true. This singer Schools of England.” By W. P. Atkinson, Cam
bridge (U.S.), 1865.
was Caffarelli.”
�15
“4. That individual minds come into the
wor'd with individual characteristics; often,
in the case of superior minds, strongly marked,
and qualifying them for the more successful
pursuit of some one career, than of any other.
“ 5. That the study of the material world
may be said to be the divinely appointed
instrument for the cultivation and development
of the observing faculties ; while the study of
the immaterial mind, with all that belongs to
it, including the study of language as the
instrument of thought, is the chief agent in
the development of the reflective faculties.”
Speaking in the interests of that reform in
the curriculum which is very decidedly needed,
I would frankly accept these propositions,
though the terms of some of them, especially
those of the fourth and fifth, might give a
caviller a favourable opportunity. Of one
point essentially involved in them, I have no
doubt; and that is, that any rational curriculum
of elementary study must be based on the fact
that the observing, are called into action before
the reflecting, faculties ; in other words, that
the food must be swallowed before it is
digested ; though 1 believe it to be an educa
tional fallacy to maintain that therefore no
food should be swallowed that cannot be
instantly digested. The general consideration
would, however, seem to justify us in carry
ing forward, before anything else is attempted,
the instruction which the child has already
commenced for himself, in the study of the
phenomena of the external world, and in that
of the mother tongue. Professor Tyndall has
shown, in his interesting lecture on the study
of Physics, that even the new-born babe is an
experimental philosopher, and improvises by
instinct a suction-pump to supply himself
with his natural food, and day after day, by
experiment and observation, makes himself
acquainted with the ordinary properties of
matter, acquires the idea of distance, sound,
and gravitation, and so on, and, by burning
his fingers and scalding his tongue, learns
also the conditions of his physical well being.
In this hand-to-mouth way the pupil in the
great school of nature begins his lessons, and
surely it is most natural that he should be
encouraged to continue this self-education,
and, under judicious guidance, he may very
properly be made acquainted with the things
“ which lie about in daily life,” and also be
trained to the study of that proper con
nection between things and words which is
the true basis of a good knowledge of his own
language. Such a course of instruction, such
“ lessons on objects,” will no doubt amuse and
interest the young natural philosopher, and may
be the means of eliciting, even quite early in life,
thosepredilectionsofwhichMr. Atkinson speaks
as the special characteristics of the individual,
and which, in certain cases, may furnish sug
gestions to be afterwards employed in con
ducting his education.
Having arrived at this point in the discus
sion of ray subject, I must make a confession ;
—which, however, is not humiliating, because,
though I have to speak of personal failure, I
am supported by the consciousness of honest
intentions. I have always been fond of
science in every shape, and well remember
the delight with which, when a boy, I
adopted as the pocket companions of my
leisure hours the little volumes of Joyce’s
“ Scientific Dialogues,” and Miss Edge
worth’s charming “ Harry and Lucy.” I
say this to show that in the experiments
which I made in teaching something that
might be called science to young children, I
was working con amore, and with a real desire
to succeed. But I found my young natural
philosophers somewhat difficult to manage.
As long as everything was new, and striking,
and amusing, they were attentive enough :
but as soon as anything like training was
attempted, as soon as I required perfect accu
racy in observing, and careful classification
and retention of results, my popularity waned
astonishingly. They were, for the most part,
satisfied with the attainments which they had
made in the knowledge of the external world
within the first three or four years of their
lives, and did not discover that “craving after
knowledge’’ which, I am told by Mr. Spencer
and others, is always exhibited by children
until it is for ever extinguished by the spectral
display of the Latin grammar, which, like the
famous Medusa’s head, turns every one that
looks at it into stone. According to my own ex
perience, the young natural philosophers gene
rally preferred choosing their own subject of
instruction, and their own arena for the exer
cise ; and that subject was what is usually
called play, and the arena the playground.
It is true enough that there is a great deal to
�]6
be learned of the properties of matter,—resist with this evening. Neither children nor men
ance, elasticity, action and reaction, the com naturally like the difficulties, the drudgery of
position of forces, &c.,—in playing at bat, any subject whatever. No practical teacher
trap, and ball ; but I doubt very much will pretend that they do. Yet these diffi
*
whether there is any natural craving after culties must be overcome, if the subject is to
such knowledge as the final cause of the game. be really learned. But we may test my posi
In general, I must say from experience that tion by reference to music. I might, of course,
it is as possible to make even abstract subjects, indulge in any amount of rhapsody about
such as arithmetic and grammar, quite as music,—its exquisite charms,—its universal
interesting to young children as those parts popularity, and so on,—but what verdict
of science which really call for mental effort, would a jury of little girls give on what is tech
and involve minute accuracy and care. Facts nically termed “practice,”and on the “gram
and phenomena certainly do interest the mar of music”? That “practice,” however, and
young; but science, as such, the knowledge of that “grammar, ” are the very foundation of the
the relations between them, does not. Practical excellent performance which so delights our
teachers are well aware of this fact, which ears and our taste, and without the one we
theoretical writers too often forget, or, most absolutely cannot have the other. I wonder,
indeed, whether, if we could collect all the
probably, do not know.
Because children attending a lecture on tears which have been shed by children re
natural science open their eyes very wide, and spectively learning the Latin grammar and
look intensely interested when they hear a the piano in two separate receptacles, the
loud bang, or see some of those striking ex music lachrymatory would not contain the
periments performed—often in a sort of a la\ larger quantity. And yet music is so delight
Stodare fashion—which form the stock-in- ful, and the Latin grammar so horridly dis
trade of the lecturer on, say oxygen and agreeable 1 To return, however, to my main
hydrogen gases, it is too hastily concluded argument.
that that would be the normal condition of
The early stage of life is doubtless the most
their attention to the science of chemistry in suitable time for improving and exercising
general. Look, however, at the same children the natural faculty of observation, and much
when the lecturer takes his chalk in hand, may be done at this time in preparing the
and endeavours, by a diagram of very simple mind for the great benefit which the proper
character, to make them understand the study of science is to confer upon it. But I
causes of the phenomena. The lack-lustre must protest against dignifying the desultory
eyes and the yawning mouth very soon tell us scraps of information thus acquired — the
that what we just witnessed was simple excite results of the process of taking up one sub
ment, a matter of the senses, nerves, and ject after another to keep the child in good
muscles mainly, and being connected with humour — the cakes and honey supplied
amusement, and therefore involving no mental to sweeten the youthful lips—by the name
exertion, caught the attention for an instant, of science; nor do I feel inclined to think
but was not in itself an element of mental that we have at last reached the long-sought
improvement. The moment the mind was desideratum in teaching, when a band of chil
called on, it obeyed the summons with just dren, in all the frolic and fun belonging to
as much alacrity as it usually displays their nature, gather handfuls of flowers, and run
when invited to dissect a diagram of up to the teacher to ask the names of them, and
Euclid. The assertion, that, as a general —to forget them as soon as named.
*
How
rule (and independently of the all-important ever, if this is science, I would certainly teach
question of what sort of a man the teacher is), it in the early stage of instruction. Children
children love science and hate language, is generally like this desultory style of skipping
another fallacy of the same kind as those
* Mr. Henslow’s interesting experiments in teach
we have been already so liberally dealing ing village children accomplished much more than
this; and, indeed, proves the applicability of the sub
* Thia is very pleasantly exemplified in Dr. Paris’s ject to the wants of the early stage of education. (See
Museum, vol. iii. p. 4, and Educational Times, Nov.,
ingenious little book, “Philosophy in Sport made
Science in Earnest.”
I860.)
�17
from subject to subject. It stimulates their
senses, brings them into contact with nature
herself in the open air, interests them in
her glorious variety and boundless fulness,
and thus supplies happy emotions; it calls
for little exertion on their part, does not
“bother their brains,” and is rarely the occasion
of tears or punishments.
*
If this is science, I
would teach it as a part of the training of the
observing faculties, a discipline which has been
too much neglected by the ordinary systems
and in the hands of a judicious teacher, out of
these random efforts real instruction may grow;
and the bricks thrown together in a heap, and
so far valueless, may, under the genial influ
ence of the educational Ainphion, rise up, like
the walls of the fabulous Thebes, into the form
of a harmonious fabric.
We must not, however, forget that our young
philosopher, who has learnt so much by him
self in the first two or three years of his life
by exercising his faculty of observation, also
developes, in the same space of time, eminent
powers as a linguist; and if we follow nature
in aiding and encouraging his researches in the
one field, it appears quite right to do the same
in the other. Indeed, the two faculties are
exactly adapted to assist each other ; for not
withstanding all that is said about the learning
of things as opposed to the learning of words,
there is a sense in which they are one and the
same, and it is very curious to see how Mr.
Spencer, for instance, in describing what he
evidently considers model lessons in elementary
science, speaks as if a great part of the object of
these lessons was to teach the accurate mean
ing of words. “The mother,” he says, “must
familiarize her little boy with the names of the
simpler attributes, hardness, softness, colour; in
* It is well, too, to encourage children to make
eollections of leaves, butterflies, Deetles, &c. Every
thing should be done to make the connexion
between teacher and pupils pleasant for both; and
therefore sympathy should be warmly evinced in
such pursuits as these. Professor Blackie has well
expressed these views in the following passage from
a lecture delivered in Latin, at the Marischal College,
Aberdeen:—“ Exeant in campos pneri, fluminum
cursus vestigent, in montes adscendant; saxa, lapides,
arbores, herbas, flores notent, et notando amare
discant; oculis non vagis, fluitantibus et somniculosis, sed apertis, Claris, firmis; auribus non obtusis
incertisque sed erectis atque accuratis rerum varietatem percipiant.” (De Latinarum literarum proestantia atque utititate, p. 13.)
t See Appendix, note B.
doing which she finds him eagerly help by
bringing this to show that it is red, and the
other to make her feel that it is hard, as fast
as she gives him words for these properties.”
There is much more to the same purport, which
I have no time to quote. But is it not singular
that so ingenious a man does not see that this
process, which he lauds so highly, is only a
sensible way of teaching, not science merely,but
the mother-tongue? The teacher is trying to get
the pupil to attach clear ideas to the use of
words; and, while professing to despise the
teaching of words, is in reality doing little
else; for words are, in a well understood sense,
the depositories of the knowledge, spirit, and
wisdom of a nation.
*
I am perfectly aware
that the pupil, while thus engaged, is learning
much more than mere words ; but I maintain
that he is also learning words while he is
learning things, and that the antithesis so
much insisted on is more specious than real.
However this may be, I quite approve of these
lessons on things, or lessons on words, which
ever they may be called, as a part of the ele
mentary stage of instruction, which may be
practically considered as terminating at twelve
years of age.
But this stage is also the most suitable for
learning the use of a foreign tongue, and, there
fore, to the elementary subjects which must,
as a matter of course, come into the cur
riculum—reading, writing, arithmetic, taught
at first by palpable objects, or counters;
geography, commencing with the topography
of the house and parish in which the pupil
lives ; history, made picturesque by oral teach
ing in such a way as to arrest the attention
and stimulate the imagination ; lessons on
objects as introductory to the rudiments of
science; word-lessons,t gradually extended
from the names of material objects to those of
moral and intellectual notions—should be added
the study of French. The lessons in this lan
guage should be eminently practical; accurate
pronunciation should be insisted on, and as
* He who completely knows a word knows all
that that word is or ever was intended to convey, its
etymological origin, its first meaning as fixed in the
language, its subsequent history, its varying for
tunes, and the idea it suggests to various classes of
persons.
f Hints for such lessons might be gained from
Wood’s Account of the Edinburgh Sessional School;
but better ones can easily be framed.
C
�18
rapidly as possible the actual practice secured. the Curriculum ; and henceforth the develop
This is the main point. At no period of life ment of the reflective faculties, and the acquisi
will so good an opportunity be found' for tion of habits of industry and hard work, are
doing this in an easy, natural way. The the main objects to be kept in view. This is
organs are in a flexible condition, the ear to be especially the stage of discipline ; disci
is apt at catching, the mouth at imitating, pline by means of Science (including Mathe
sounds ; and without even talking of grammar matics) and Language. The question now is,
(should such talk seem very alarming) a true which shall take the lead.
Vitiation into the language may be gained.
Science may, for our present purpose, be
All that has now been suggested appears to defined to be the knowledge of the laws of
be quite consistent with the principle above nature, as gained by reflection on facts which
recommended, of continuing the exercise of the have been previously arranged in an orderly and
faculties of observation and imitation already methodical manner in the mind, in accordance
commenced by nature.
with their natural relation to each other.
Such rudimentary lessons in science as have Every one must see that such a subject as
been proposed above, do not appear to involve this affords abundant scope for a life-long, and
much strict mental discipline ; nor do I believe, not merely a school, education. Considering,
for reasons which will presently be suggested, too, that this knowledge is not only deeply
that true science can advantageously be studied interesting in itself, but, being gained for the
by very young pupils.
*
There is, however, one very purpose of diffusion, adds greatly to the
subject, which might, perhaps, be taken as sum of human happiness and prosperity, the
the disciplinary study of the elementary stage, motives to its pursuit are indeed transcendantly
and with the greatest advantage. That sub powerful, so that it must be a matter of great
ject is Arithmetic, which, ifjudiciously taught, concern to all to secure for those who are to
involves a genuine mental discipline of the pursue it, even in a subordinate degree, a worthy
most valuable kind ; and though really abstract training.
in its nature, is capable of exciting the live
If science, then, is to constitute a real
liest interest, while it forms in the pupil habits discipline for the mind, much, nay every
of mental attention, argumentative sequence, thing, will depend on the manner in which
absolute accuracy, and satisfaction in truth as it is studied. In the first place, it is to be re
a result, that do not seem to spring equally membered that (to use the oft-quoted phrase)
from the study of any other subject suitable to the pupil is about to study things, not words ;
this elementary stage of instruction.
and therefore treatises on science are not to be
At twelve years of age the pupil may be in the first instance placed before him. He
considered as entering on the second stage of must commence with the accurate examination
(for which he has been partially prepared by
* It is only fair to place in view here the opinions the first stage of instruction) of the objects and
on this point of Dr. Carpenter and Mr. Faraday, to
whose judgment on any subject great deference is phenpmena themselves, not of descriptions of
due; only adding, that I should attach more value to1 them prepared by others. By this means not
their opinions on teaching men, to which they are |
accustomed, than on teaching children, to which, as only will his attention be excited, the power
far as I know, they are not accustomed. In this of observation, previously awakened, much
matter as in others referred to before (see p. I strengthened, and the senses exercised and
13), going through with a thing is very different
from merely beginning it, or touching it at special disciplined, but the very important habit of
selected points. Have these gentlemen taught children doing homage to the authority of facts
hour after hour, year after year?
“ At ten years old a boy [and therefore the average rather than to the authority of men, be initiated.
of boys] is quite capable of understanding a very These different objects and phenomena may be
large proportion of what is set down for matricula
tion at the London University under the head of placed and viewed together, and thus the
Natural Philosophy.” (Dr. Carpenter's Evidence mental faculties of comparison and discrimina
before Commission on Public Schools, vol. iv. p. 364.) tion usefully practised. They may, in the next
. “ I would teach a little boy of eleven years of age
ft. e. the average boys of eleven?] of ordinary intel place, be methodically arranged and classified,
ligence, all these things that come before classics and thus the mind may become accustomed to
in this programme of the London University, i. e.
mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, optics,” &c. an orderly arrangement of its knowledge.
(Mr. Faraday's Evidence, vol. iv.p. 378.)
Then tlie accidental may be distinguished from
�19
the essential, the common from the special, and
so the habit of generalization may be acquired ;
and lastly, advancing from effects to causes,
or conversely from principles to their necessary
conclusions, the pupil becomes acquainted
with induction and deduction—processes of
the highest value and importance. Every one
will allow that such a course as this,
faithfully carried out, must prove to be a
very valuable training. It would not, in
deed, discipline the mind so closely as pure
mathematics, yet its range is wider, and
it is more closely connected with human in
terests and feelings. It is no small advantage,
too, that it affords, both in its pursuit and its
results,—both in the chase and the capture,—
a very large amount of legitimate and generous
mental pleasure, and of a kind which the pupil
will probably be desirous of renewing for himself
after he has left school. After all, however, it
will be observed that, while the study of the
physical sciences tends to give power over the
material forces of the universe, it leaves un
touched the greater forces of the human heart;
it makes a botanist, a geologist, an electrician,
an architect, an engineer, but it does not make
a man. The hopes, the fears, the hatreds and
the loves, the emotions which stir us to heroic
action, the reverence which bows in the presence
of the inexpressibly good and great; the sen
sitive moral taste which shrinks from vice and
approves virtue ; the sensitive mental taste,
which appreciates the sublime and beautiful
in art, and sheds delicious tears over the
immortal works of genius—all this wonderful
world of sensation and emotion lies outside
that world which is especially cultivated by
the physical sciences. This is no argument,
of course, against their forming a proper, nay
an essential, part of the curriculum, but it is an
argument against their taking the first place.
They are intimately’connected, of course, with
our daily wants and conveniences. The study
of them cultivates in the best way the faculties
of observation, and leads naturally to the for
mation in the mind of the idea of natural law,
and so ultimately to investigations and sugges
tions of a very high order, in the pursuit of which
it is sought to define the shadowy boundary be
tween mind and matter, or to reveal to present
time the long buried secrets of the past. But
in order to attain at last these eminent heights
of science, the preliminary training must be
rigorous and exact. It must embrace the
difficult as well as the pleasing and amusing
—that which requires close and long-con
tinued attention as well as that which only
ministers to a transient curiosity. It must
be based on the “ firm ground of experi
ment,” and be ind .pendent of mere book study,
which, it has been well observed, is, in rela
tion to science, only as valuable, in the absence
of the facts, as a commentary on the Iliad
would be to him who had never read the poem.
We may assent then, on the whole, without
hesitation, to the wise and careful judgment
passed on the study of physical science as a part
of the Curriculum by the Public School Com
missioners in their report. “ It quickens,’’they
say, “ and cultivates directly, the faculty of ob
servation, whichin very many personslies almost
dormant through life, the power of accurate and
rapid generalisation, and the mental habit of
method and arrangement; it accustoms young
persons to trace the sequence of cause and effect;
it familiarizes them with a kind of reasoning
which interests them, and which they can
promptly compreheud ; and it is perhaps the
best corrective for that indolence which is the
vice of half-awakened minds, and which shrinks
from any exertion that is not, like an effort of
memory, merely mechanical.” In spite, then,’
of Dr. Moberly’s denunciation of such studies as
“worthless,” and as “giving no power” in edu
*
cation, 1 maintain that it is utterly impos
sible to exclude a subject with pretensions like
these from our curriculum. They must and will
occupy a considerable space in it—they deserve
to do so. For reasons, however, already stated,
I would not give them the post of the highest
distinction, which ought to be reserved for the
studies which exercise, not special faculties,
but the whole man ; not the man as a profes
sional and with a utilitarian end in view, but
as a citizen of the world, as one who is to
meet his fellow men and to influence their
decisions upon the difficult and complicated
problems of society.!
* “ In a school like this (Winchester), I consider
instruction in physical science, in the way in which
we can give it, is worthless......... A scientific fact....
is a fact which produces nothing in a boy’s mind....
It leads to nothing. It does not germinate; it is a
perfectly unfruitful fact..........These things give no
power whatever.” (Evidence before Commission on
Public Schools, vol. Hi. p. 344.)
f See Dr. Johnson’s opinion, Appendix C.
�20
Some think that pure mathematics should
occupy this central post of honour. A
moment’s consideration, however, will show
that the study of algebra, geometry, the
calculus, <fcc., not only does not embrace
those topics of common interest which are
essential for our purpose; but has a special
and limited office to perform — I mean, of
course, independently of their practical appli
cations. Lord Bacon has judiciously summed
up their special functions. “ They do,” he
says, “ remedy and cure many defects in the
wit and faculties intellectual ; for if the wit be
too dull, they sharpen it; if too wandering, they
fix it ; if too inherent in the sense, they abstract
it. So that, as tennis is a game of no use of
itself, but of great use in respect it maketh a
quick eye, and a body ready to put itself into
all postures ; so with mathematics, that use
which is collateral and intervenient is no less
worthy than that which is principal and in
tended.” These words aptly characterise the
advantages of the study of mathematics, and
point out their proper office in education.
They cannot, from their very nature, exercise
a formative power over the whole mind ; but
they are very profitably employed in correcting
certain defects, and in teaching, as scarcely
anything else can teach, habits of accu
racy. They call into play but few of the
faculties ; but these they exercise rigorously,
and therefore usefully. It has been objected
to them, that when pursued to any considerable
extent, without the counterpoise of more gene
ral studies, they become particularly exclusive
and mechanical in their influence; but this
perhaps can hardly be considered as an essen
tial characteristic. On the whole, however, it
can scarcely be maintained that mathematics
will serve as the basis we require for our educa
tional operations, though no education can be
considered as complete which excludes them.
Having then shown that, notwithstand
ing the great value both of physics and of
mathematics in education, they are too special
in their application to serve as the central
subject in our curriculum, we turn once more
to language, and especially to the Latin lan
guage which I should propose as the exer
cising ground best adapted for the intellectual
drilling of our young soldier. Greek, in the
case of those whose school education is to
terminate at sixteen years of age, must, I
think, be displaced in favour of the prac
tical claims of German. This concession, and
this only, would I recommend making to pub
lic opinion. And it is the less necessary to con
test this point, as nearly all the disciplinary
advantages which so eminently characterise the
study of the classical languages may be gained
from the study of Latin alone. It may then,
I conceive, be fairly maintained that the
place which classical instruction holds in the
curriculum of English education is not due
to prejudice, as some believe; nor to ignorance
of what is going on in society around us, as
others pretend; but to a well-judged estimate
of its importance and value as a discipline for
the youthful mind, and as an element of the
highest rank among the civilising influences of
the world.
This study may be considered under two
aspects, the language itself and its literature.
My first proposition is that the study of the
Latin language itself does eminently discipline
the faculties, and secure, to a greater degree than
that of the other subjects we have discussed,
the formation and growth of those mental
qualities which are the best preparatives for
the business of life—whether that business is
to consist in making fresh mental acquisitions,
or in directing the powers, thus strengthened
and matured, to professional or other pursuits.
Written language consists of sentences, and
sentences of words. In commencing the study
of a language, we may consider these words
as things, which we have to investigate and
analyse. They possess many qualities in
common with natural objects, and may be
therefore treated in a somewhat similar way.
They have material qualities; they can be
seen — they can be named (their sound is
their name)—they can be compared together
—their resemblances and differences discrimi
nated, and arrangements or classifications of
them made in accordance with observed simi
larity or difference in form. The memory,
too, is practically and systematically exer
cised. The paradigms of inflexions must be
accurately learnt by heart, and so familiarly
known that the constant comparison between
them as standards, and the varying forms
which arise for interpretation, may be spon
taneous and easy. And these acts of com
parison are themselves of great value, and
tend to cultivate accuracy of judgment: the
�21
very blunders made are instructive: the half when placed in juxtaposition with words
perception induced by indolence must be of our language, or when viewed in connec
corrected by increased labour. The attempt tion with cognates of their own, capable of
at evasion ends in a more complete reception ; affording vivid illustrations of the methods
hence a moral as well as a mental lesson. Thus, and artifices by which languages are formed.
acts of attention, observation, memory, and Hence arise exercises in derivation, or tracing
judgment are called forth; and these acts, by of words up to their roots, and in analysis,
being performed numberless times, grow into or breaking up the compounds into their
habits. Again, these words can be analysed, several components. These exercises in deri
separated into their component parts, and these vation cultivate moreover, when properly car
parts severally examined, and their functions ried out, the habit of deducing the secondary
ascertained. Conversely, we may employ the and figurative senses of words from the pri
synthetic process. We may fashion these mary and literal. Such an exercise leads the
elements in conformity with some given model, pupil beyond the boundaries of mere language.
and thus adapt them to some given end. By In pursuing it, he learns to study the mode
closer investigation and comparison, affinities in which the early stages of society formed
before unperceived are traced and appreciated, their conceptions, and to notice how, as
the transformation of letters detected, and civilization advanced, the language too bore
the foundation laid for the science of Philo evidence of the change. Thus the word guberlogy. It should be observed, that all these nare primarily means to pilot a vessel; second
operations or experiments (for so they may be arily, to direct the vessel of the state, to
*
called) are performed on facts—on objects (a govern
But words, in themselves vital organisms,
word is as much an object as a flower)
directly exposed to observation; that they are though frequently the life is rather latent than
at the same time simple in their nature, and visible, are also to b3 considered in their com
though requiring minute attention, and so bination in sentences. Their vitality now
forming the habit of accuracy, are evidently becomes intensified. The original author,
within the competency of a child. It is no speaking to men of his own nation, and aptly
small advantage that the means of training employing the resources of his craft, had by
the mind to such habits are always within a kind of intellectual magnetism converted
reach, and available to an unlimited extent; the neutral and indifferent into the active and
and not, as is often the case with respect to significant, and constrained all to cooperate in
physical objects, adapted to elicit somewhat effecting his great purpose of speaking out to
similar exertions, obtained with difficulty, and other minds. And there before the eyes of
therefore, perhaps, only heard of, and not seen. our pupil is the result. But it does not speak
But the attention of the pupil, at times out to him. That sentence, beginning with a
necessarily occupied with the accidents or in capital and ending with a full stop, is a body
flexions—the characteristic point of difference with a soul in it, with which he has to com
between his own and the Latin language—is municate. But how to do this? His eye
at others directed especially to what we may passes over it. It looks unattractive, dark,
call the being of each word, the idea which it and cold. Soon, however, something is seen
is intended to convey or suggest. And now in the words or their inflexions, which he
these words, lately treated as simply material, recognises, by a kind of momentary flash, as
inanimate, and dead—anatomical “ subjects” significant. The soul within begins to speak
—are to be considered as invested with a kind to him ; and he catches some faint conception
of physiological interest, and as exhibiting
* Tnis
phenomena of life whose nature it becomes interestingsort of investigation, often opens a very
field of inquiry. Thus the word virtue,
important to study. Our pupil’s interest in in different stages of the Roman history, meant suc
cessively, active physical courage or manhood, and
them, viewed under this aspect, cannot but be
active moral courage, or virtue ; while later, in
much augmented. Words are now no longer Rome’s comparatively degenerate days, virtu signified
things merely, but significant symbols of ideas. a taste for the fine arts! a pregnant commentary on
people. That people, however,
These little organisms, in one sense mere the character of the has already begun to restore the
it may be remarked,
torpid aggregations of matter, are in another, original meaning of the word.
�22
of what it would reveal. As he still gives heed, described, can only be accomplished by <5ne
other points show symptoms of life, and the who is armed with grammatical power. With
lately brute and torpid mass becomes vocal out this, the efforts made to communicate with
and articulate. One after another the words the soul of the author must be feeble and
kindle into expression ; clause after clause is ineffectual. It is one of the special objects of
disentangled from its connection with the the course I am advocating, to cultivate this
main body of the sentence, and appreciated faculty, because in doing so we are in fact cul
both separately and in combination, until at tivating to a high degree the reasoning powers
length a thrill of intelligence pervades the of the pupil. The construction of words in a
whole, and the passage, before dark, inani sentence does not depend upon arbitrary laws,
mate, and unmeaning, becomes instinct with but upon right reason, upon the exact cor
light and life.
respondence between expression and thought,
By these and similar processes, which it is and therefore “ good grammar,” as has been
needless to specify, the pupil learns to apprehend well observed, “ is neither more nor less than
his author’s meaning, though perhaps at first good sense.”*
only obscurely. The next stage in his training
A wise teacher—one who wishes to quicken,
is to find wordsand phrases in his native tongue and is anxious not to deaden, his pupil’s mind—
suited to express it. To do this adequately, he will not, of course, force upon him those indi
must not only ascertain the meaning of each gestible boluses, the technical rules and defini
term, but conceive fully and correctly all the tions of syntax, before training him to observe
propositions that constitute a complete sen the facts on which the rules are founded ; but
tence, in their natural connection and interde will accustom him to the habit of reasoning only
pendence ; he must observe the bearing of the in the presence offacts, which is so valuable
previous sentences on the one under considera at all times. The habit of reasoning on the
tion, and the ultimate point to which all are construction, the syntax of one language, is,
tending. Now, in order to convey perfectly of course, generally applicable to others ; and
to others the meaning, which he has himself its practice in connection with Latin tends by
laboriously acquired, he must not only have an amount of experience which countervails
made an exact logical analysis of the sentence, all theory, to prepare the pupil for learning
so as to see what he has to say, but must his own language thoroughly.
exercise his judgment and taste (not to say
In addition to the grammatical advantage
knowledge) on the choice of words and just named, there are two others I would men
phrases which will best answer the purpose, tion, which prove that learning Latin is a
and truly represent the clearness, energy, or good preparation for the better knowledge of
eloquence of the author. To do this fault the mother tongue. The one is, that as so large
lessly requires of course the matured judg a part of the vocabulary of the English lan
ment and refined taste of the accomplished guage is derived from the Latin, either directly,
scholar; but the very effort involved in the or indirectly through the French, no accurate
attempt to grasp the spirit of the author, to study of the former can be accomplished
rise to the elevation of his thoughts, and to gain without a fundamental knowledge of Latin.
the sympathy of others for them by an ade According to Archbishop Trench, thirty per
quate and worthy representation of them in
his native language, cannot but elevate his
* As the analysis of sentences is now become a
own mental stature. “ We strive to ascend,
regular part of the study of English in all good
and we ascend in our striving.”
schools, I would strongly recommend its also being
The advantages of such a course as I have made ancillary in the study of Latin. Lessons on
a sentence,
and
now sketched must be acknowledged to be the essential elements of predicative,on “subject” and
“predicate,” and on the
attributive,
very great, although only the language is as other relations (such as may be found admirably dis
Mason English Grammar),
form
yet under consideration. But there are two or played in of the ’steaching of Latin, asshould do of
the basis
they
three other points that must not be omitted. English, syntax. Their application to Caesar, Cicero,
The first of these is the value of the strict or Virgil, would be not only most valuable in itself
as mental training, but would greatly lessen the diffi
grammatical analysis required. The process culties felt by a boy in dealing with complicated
of eliciting light out _of darkness, before constructions which are new-Jto him.
�23
cent, of the vocabulary actually used by our
authors is derived from the Latin; and the
proportion is still greater, if we analyse the
columns of our English dictionary, where the
words are what is called “ at rest.” Indeed,
to so great a degree have we admitted these
aliens into our language, that we have learnt
to attach Latin prefixes and suffixes to pure
English roots, so as to form new and hybiid
compounds. But further,—and this point is
less obvious than that just adduced,—as almost
all our greatest authors were trained in the clas
sical school, both their vocabulary and phrase
ology, their language and their thoughts,
bear a characteristic stamp upon them which
can only be fully appreciated by those who
have undergone a similar training. It is not too
much to say that many exquisite graces, both
of thought and expression, in the works of
Bacon, Milton, Sir T. Brown, Jeremy Taylor,
Sir W. Temple, Gray, Young, Cowper, and
others, must elude the notice—and so far fail in
their object—of a reader not qualified to meet
the authors as it were on their own ground.
*
And may I add that, as far as my own observa
tion goes, by far the most enthusiastic lovers
of our own language and literature are the
votaries of classical learning. They love more
because they can appreciate better.
But it will be thought that I have sufficiently
pleaded the cause of Latin as fai as the lan
*
guage is concerned. I must, therefore, devote a
few words to its literature. In a course such as
I have proposed, and which I would commence
at 12, with the idea of carrying it on up to
the age of 16, and employing in it half the
hours of every school day, and which would
comprehend, besides the study of the lan
guage, such cultivation of geography, history,
* Examples are numberless: just three or four
occur at this moment. Take Milton—
“ Satan exalted sat, by merit raised
To that bad eminence.”—(Par. Lost, ii. 5.)
“ The undaunted fiend what this might be admired ;
Admired, not feared.”—(Par. Lost, ii. 677.)
“ That wise and civil Roman, Julius Agricola.”
(Areopagitica.)
“ Sadness does, in some cases, become aChristian, as
being an index of a pious mind, of compassion, and a
wise, proper resentment of things.”—(Jeremy Taylor.)
‘‘ Prevent us, 0 Lord, with thy most gracious favour.”
(Book of Common Prayer.)
“ This proud man affects imperial sway.”—(Dryden.)
It is obvious that a mere English scholar, unedu
cated in classics, would not, of himself, see the exact
meaning of the words in italics.
archaeology, <fcc., as would be required for the
elucidation of the text, and also the parallel
study of English literature, we could not hope
to read many authors. Indeed, faithful to
the principle, multum non multa, I would not
even attempt it. A selection of the best might
be made, to be studied on the principle that
they were to be actually known, not merely
“ gone through,”* by means of which not only
would the pupil profit by the invigorating dis
cipline I have described, but be subjected to
the enlarging and refining influence which
would place him in communion with some of
the master spirits of antiquity, and therefore
give him an introduction to those great authors
of all modern times whose labours have tended
to form the civilization of Europe. In no
other way can he so well be introduced to the
commonwealth of letters, and be made free
to avail himself of its privileges. The fact
that these finished works of literary art still
survive amongst us, as real substantial powers
whose influence cannot be gainsaid, is a won
drous proof of their merit as models of com
position. They present us with histories which
still enlighten and instruct men in the art of
government, with oratory which still speaks
in trumpet tones to the human heart, with
poetry still “musical as is Apollo’s lute”; in
short, with matter which, however now dispar
aged, has served in successive ages both to
furnish men with thoughts, and to teach them
how to think; so that in truth, though styled
dead, they are, in the highest sense, ever liv
ing ; having (to use Hobbes’s eloquent expres
sion) “ put off flesh and blood, and put on
immortality.”
But I must pass in review a few of the
objections commonly taken against the posi
tions I have maintained in this paper.
1st. Some object to the very principle of a
central or fundamental study, and denounce it
as a fundamental fallacy. Since it is admitted,
they say, that it is not so much the subject as
the manner of learning it that constitutes the
discipline, one subject is as good as another ;
and as it is a matter of great importance to
interest the pupil, we had better adopt sub
jects pro re nata, which seem likely to accom
plish that object, without respect to their rank
in the circle of knowledge. We may thus se
* See Appendix, D.
�cure the object in view without the difficulty,
perplexity, hard work, and sometimes even
tears, which are attendant on a stricter disci
pline, and which often set the pupil against
learning altogether. To refute this objection,
I should have to repeat much of my previous
argument, in which you will remember I con
tended for the upholding of one subject, or at
least very few subjects, on the principle that
while, with regard to some, we may be con
tented with a general knowledge, there should
be one at least which should be learned as well
as possible, and serve as a sort of standard of
comparison. I accept, however, these objec
tions as valid, on condition that those who
uphold them will promise that their pupils
shall not shirk the drudgery, the drill, which
must be undergone in the learning of any sub
ject whatever, and which often constitutes the
most valuable part of the process; that in
teaching music they will strictly require the
“ practice” and also the “grammar of music
in teaching languages, perfect grammatical
analysis; in teaching science, rigidly close
attention to details, however irksome, and
to every step of the reasoning properly de
duced from them. If the objectors accept
this test, they surrender the position that the
study is to be accommodated to the pupil, and
therefore tacitly allow the principle of a train
ing subject; if they do not, they are driven
back upon the Chrestomathic curriculum, and
the idea of real education, as I understand the
term, is given up.
2nd. It is maintained that if a leading sub
ject is desirable, modem languages, or our
jown, would more usefully occupy that position.
First, with regard to the modern languages.
Their eminent claims to a high place in our
curriculum are at once admitted. They have a
great practical value as languages; and their
literatures are brilliant and attractive, and
fraught with modern interest. Both French
and German, too, have affinities with English,
the one as being a daughter of that paternal
stock from which we derive so much, and the
other as belonging to the great Teutonic
family of languages, of which ours is also a
member. Then, in consequence of the in
creasing intercourse between nations, they are
becoming every day more and more useful;
and lastly, involving as they do many of the
advantages claimed for Latin, they are much
more easily and rapidly acquired; These are
valid reasons for admission into the curriculum,
but not for taking the leading place in it. As
to French, so many of its words resemble our
own, and its construction is apparently so
simple and transparent, that a pupil is
tempted to guess or scramble at the meaning,
rather than carefully approach it by thought
ful consideration, as he must do in Latin.
Without dwelling on this as an evil in itself,
I must insist on it as a great disadvantage in
a training subject. A certain amount of
resistance, enough to encourage effort, and not
enough to intimidate, is an advantage rather
than otherwise to the pupil. It serves to detain
him awhile in face of the difficulty, and gives
him the opportunity of estimating both it and
the resources with which past experience has
furnished him for its solution, and thus trains
the mind to encounter successfully other diffi
culties. On the other hand, as we avowedly
learn French and German more for practical
than literary purposes, more as means than
ends, the less resistance we meet with, the
more rapid the acquisition, the better. The
training subject is, however, in a certain sense,
the end itself; and losing time in acquiring
it may be an ultimate gain. The same general
remarks apply, though less strictly, to Ger
man, which I have recommended as a sub
stitute for Greek.
Secondly, as to the claims of English to
occupy the leading place. The main objec
tion to this claim, as far as the language
itself is concerned, is that we are, as is some
times said of a material object, too near to see
it. We must stand at some distance from it,
in order to comprehend its form and features,
or, which is often easier, study the form and
features of something else of the same kind,
and then apply the knowledge thus gained to
the case in point. Those who ask us to study
the general principles of grammar, by the
acknowledgment of all so valuable, in our
own language first, pretend that they are
substituting the easy for the difficult; but it
is not so. The real difficulty is to abstract the
clear and transparent medium in which our
ideas circulate, and to view it by itself. So
with the study of human nature; obvious as
it seems to look at home, to know ourselves,
to watch the operations of our own hearts and
minds, yet general experience admits that it
�25
is far easier to gather its principles from valuable, so indispensable, as a means to the
observing the actions of other men projected, end they have in view, the attainment of com
as it were, before our view, and favourably plete command over them, that they recommend
adapted for our examination. Our own lan constant repetition of the same exercise until
guage, then, is to be the object, rather than it is thoroughly mastered, rather than rapid
the means, of our pupil’s training. Through advancement to the next stage of knowledge;
out his entire course his training in another so that for a while—to the horror of the objec
language is preparing him most effectually to tors just quoted—they treat the means as if
learn his own, and the practical application of they were the end. The usual success of this
the disciplinary power should keep pace with policy may perhaps be allowed to pass as an
its attainment.
argument for its continuance. This view, of
Another objection against the spirit of the course, does not satisfy those who think that
method I would recommend has been taken, everything should be made pleasant to a child
and may be deserving of a brief treatment. —that he should have no experience of diffi
It is said that much of what I have described culty, or trial, or ennui.
*
Such is not, how
is simply “drill,” and that it is absurd to ever the spirit of the old system. We con
expend a great amount of labour on mental sider that the man who has not encountered
gymnastics, merely for the sake of the dis and overcome difficulties is only half a man.
cipline, while, by taking up a more suitable Nor would we be so little friendly to the child
subject, we may get both discipline and know as to remove them all from his path, and
ledge together. Why, says the objector, make leave him unwarned and unprepared for those
a postman, who has to walk about all day, go which he must meet with in his journey through
through a preliminary drill every morning, life. If the result of the training be that the
since he gets his exercise in his work ? And pupil comes forth from it firm in mind and
*
the argument seems to be, that exercise for limb, robust and well developed, in perfect
the direct purpose of developing power, which health and capable of enduring fatigue, we
may be developed by ordinary action, is un may be well contented with these as the results
desirable. Without attempting a full reply of the process that he has gone through.
to this objection, I would however suggest,
And now, before closing my paper, I would
in the first place, that, if logically carried out, make a few remarks on the pretensions of
it would abolish education altogether. If the science to supersede—for that is what some re
ordinary spontaneous action is sufficient, teach formers aim at—the classical training of our
ing is tyranny, for it implies that the pupil schools. I have shown my appreciation of the
must be constrained. Why not allow the great value of science, not only in itself, but
child to wander about and play from morning as a means of education; but I confess that I
to night, ‘ ‘ at his own sweet will ’ ’ ? His senses have not, never having been enlightened on this
and his thoughts will be employed in some way point, a clear idea of the manner in which it
or another, and practice will make perfect. is to be taught, so as to be a real mental dis
No teacher, however, adopts such principles cipline in schools. Those gentlemen—one of
as these, nor are they worthy of serious refu whom we proudly include in the governing
tation. Secondly, I would remark that the body of our College — who a few years
practice of all professed trainers, whether of
men or animals, refutes the objection. In
* This too is one of the notions of Mr. Spencer.
order to make a soldier, it is generally thought Everything is to be made easy and delightful. He
forgets that this is not really consistent with his own
well to keep him on the parade-ground a long idea of education as a preparation for life. A prac
time, doing goose or other steps, which he is tical teacher would remind him of the established
not to use at all after the training is over. So dictum, On ne s'instruit pas era s’amusant. Every
study is, indeed, to be rendered interesting to the
it is with music, dancing, riding, rowing, and pupil. The work of the teacher fails if he does not
other accomplishments, in which the training accomplish this. The apt teacher, however, succeeds,
not by amusing his pupil, but by sympathising with
exercises are the essence of the teaching. The him, and thus gaining his confidence—by under
teachers of these arts consider practice so standing and entering into his difficulties—by en
* See Atkinson’s pamphlet, before quoted, p. 33.
couraging him with word or look, when he is puzzled,
—never intruding help when it is not needed, never
withholding it when it is.
�26
ago, at the Royal Institution, pleaded so noble, aspirations. But the question returns,
eloquently the claims of chemistry, physics, How is science to be taught ? It will not be
*
philology, phys'ology, and economic science, pretended that the scientific mind is formed
to be adopted in the curriculum as branches by a lecture once a week on electricity or
of education for all classes, meant of course chemistry, as the case may be, nor by the
that all these subjects were to be intro occasional cramming of a text-book on the
duced. Even lately, two gentlemen, every subject. The advocates of science mean some
way competent to speak upon the subject, thing far transcending this, or they mean
have urged in this room the claims of botany just nothing. But I am compelled to say
and zoology as branches of education for all that their utterances on the practical part of
classes. We have, then—breaking up Professor the subject are singularly vague and unsatis
Tyndall’s “physics” into mechanics, hydro factory. “Teach science,” they say; but
statics, optics, pneumatics, sound, heat, &c„ then Professor Huxley does not mean, teach
some fifteen or twenty subjects claiming ad Pneumatics, he means, teach Physiology.
mission into the school curriculum. I again Professor Tyndall means by these words,
ask, how are they to be taught ? Each of Physics, and not Botany, and so on. Each
these accomplished men of course considers thinks, and naturally enough, that his own
his own special subject as worthy of every special subject is the one to be taught, and
attention, and would not be satisfied with therefore the general recommendation in
the communication of a mere smattering volves the teaching of them all, and we come
of it as representing his idea of its value. back to the Chrestomathic idea which, pre
Would any one of them be contented to hand sented pur et simple to these authorities in
over his subject to either Mr. Bentham or Mr. science, would be indignantly rejected. I
Spencer to teach ? Certainly not. They would have read with much interest the evidence
all wish the subjects which they know so well, given before the late Commission on Public
which they appreciate so highly, and on which Schools, by those eminent men, Carpenter,
they have expended so much thought and Lyell, Faraday, Hooker, Owen, Airey, and
labour themselves, to be thoroughly taught— Acland. Whatever such men say must, of
to become a real possession of the pupil. But course, be interesting ; but I confess that the
how is this to be done ? That is the question, impression left on my mind was not that of pro
the satisfactory solution of which will do more found admiration for their practical “faculty.”
to advance the claims of science to admission Their remarks and suggestions—very valuable,
into the curriculum than all the arguments no doubt, as “hints”—leave the real difficulties
that have hitherto been adduced. We hear of teaching science in schools untouched; and
the pleadings in favour of each fair claimant indeed will be found so various and inconsistent
for our regard, as she appears before us,—we as frequently to neutralize one another. With
admire her charms,—we admire all the char very few exceptions, these eminent men scarcely
mers,—but we cannot marry them all; we seem to have perceived, or at least appreciated,
cannot take them all for better, for worse, the fundamental principle, that teaching sci
to have and to hold, &c.
ence does not mean teaching electricity, or
What, then, are we to do ? We not only optics, or chemistry, or geology, but training
admit, but claim, the aid of science in educa the mind to scientific method; and that if all
tion. That general enlightenment—that apt the “ologies,” from A to Z, are to have a
handling of business—“faculty,” as some peo chance of occupying the field, a general meltie
ple callit; that appreciation of cause and effect; will be the result, which will effectually frus
that comprehension of details under general trate the object. In that case, all the sci
laws ; these, which are the proper fruits of ences might be taught—if that is the word
scientific culture, would form the best correc for it—but science would not be learned.
tive of Literature, would simplify and give a Dr. Acland’s evidence is, however, very much
definite aim to her somewhat vague, though to the point. He had clearly given thought
to the subject, and handled it like a man of
* The lectures were delivered by Drs. Whewell, business. He recommended that Physics, Che
Faraday, Latham, Daubeny, and Hodgson, and
mistry, and Physiology should be required of
Messrs. Tyndall and Paget.
�"As an educational means,” he says, in a letter
all educated men, and that the two former
should be learnt at school. When reminded, published by Mr. T. Dyke Acland, in a document
prepared by the latter for the Commission, “ che
however, that the Matriculation Examination mistry is not to be compared with other means of
of the London University comprised these and training the mind.......... The direct benefit result
other cognate subjects, he gave an opiuion, in ing from the teaching of analytical chemistry in
which I confess I agree, upon the value of such schools is nil.......... I grant that two or three boys
out of fifty may be benefited by practical instruc
scientific teaching as that examination pre tion in experimental and analytical chemistry;
supposes. It is so much to the point that 1 but am also bound to add, that the rest only
will quote it:—“ I may say, genei ally, that I waste the time which may be more usefully em
This is the result,
should value all knowledge of these physical ployed. experience, but also not only of my own
personal
that of many of my
sciences very little indeed unless it was other scientific friends in this country, at least of those
wise than book-work. If it is merely a ques who love science and desire its prosperity. More
tion of getting up certain books, and being over, I would direct your attention to the fact,
that the attempt has been made in Germany, on a
able to answer certain book-questions, that is large scale, to teach chemistry practically in
merely an exercise of the memory of a very schools for lads under sixteen years of age, and has
useless kind. The great object, though not proved so complete a iailure, that it has been all
the sole object, of the training should be to but universally abandoned in my native country.”
It appears, then, that there are difficulties in
get the boys to observe and understand the
action of matter in-some department or another, the way of teaching science, even where the
and though I am perfectly aware that what is subject is well chosen, the field comparatively
called practical knowledge, if merely mani limited, and the means and appliances am
pulatory, on any subject whatever, is a humble ply provided. Dr. Volcker’s cold and dry
thing enough ; yet, on the other hand, I must experience does not perfectly accord with Mr.
say that the utmost amount of knowledge on Spencer’s enthusiastic theory, and does not go
these subjects, without that practical and expe to prove that children eagerly hunger after
rimental knowledge, is to most persons nearly scientific knowledge as they do after their daily
as useless. You want the combination of the food. Of course it is easy to throw the blame
two; and for youths, I value very little the of failure on the teacher; but Dr. Volcker’s
mere acquisition of a quantity of book-facts on words are too definite, and apply to too large
these subjects. I want them to see and know an area to admit of this. Still, there can be
the things, and in that way they will evoke no manner of doubt that science is immensely
many qualities of the mind which the study of attractive; that it is favoured by the spirit
these subjects is intended to develope.” Thus of the age; and that it will and ought to
speaks the true teacher and votary of science, be extensively taught in schools. But its
llis anxiety is to form the scientific mind, not educational advocates have, as yet, no prac
merely to communicate information on science. tical plan involving good scientific discipline,
From a great part of the evidence of the men and no well digested results, to show. Their
whose names I just quoted, you can only gather voice will be powerful enough when they
a commentary, by “eminenthands” certainly, have, and will command the attention of
on the text, “ That the soul be without know all. As the case now stands, we have pracledge, it is not good;” which—though not a I tice on the one side, and theory on the other.
Solomon myself—I would supplement by add An amount of experience which no one can
ing, “ That the soul attempt to grasp all effectually gainsay attests the value of the
knowledge, it is not wise.”
Classical training ; while an amount of theo
Dr. Acland, it will be observed, recommends retical plausibility, which no sane man can
that chemistry be adopted as a general study ; affect to despise, supports the claims of Science
and from some little opportunity I have had of to a trial. Why should there not be a com
seeing that this subject may, to a certain promise ? Intellectual education is strictly the
extent, be adopted into the school course, I training of all the mental faculties in the best
should have thought it a wise suggestion. But way. Science teaches better, that is, more
observe what a practical teacher of chemistry on directly and thoroughly, than any other study,
a large scale, Dr. Volcker, of the Cirencester how to observe, how to arrange and classify,
Agricultural College, says on this point:—
how to connect causes with effects, how to
�estimate the practical value of facts. Why
not adopt it then as the proper complement
of the literary element ? Let botany be taught
quite early in life,—in the first stage of instruc
tion,—together with such parts of physics as
give general views of science, and interest the
mind in it. In the second stage, let some one or
two branches of physics be taken as the basis
of a sound training in science, with a view to the
formation of the really scientific mind.
*
The
classical course would thrive the better for the
collateral study of science, and the scientific
would thrive the better for the classical.
Why should not both work harmoniously
together in the curriculum ?
The principle appears to be sound in general,
that the spirit of the age should be repre
sented in the education of our schools;—
this is the reforming element of the question.
See Appendix, E.
At the same time it seems equally reasonable
that we should not forego our hold on that
mighty past of which the present is the legi
timate offspring ;—and this is the conservative
element. It is well for the son, when prepared
for the world of life, to leave his father’s home
and create one for himself. It is not well that
he should do so too early, before he is prepared.
Physical science may become—probably is des
tined to become—the organic representative of
the civilisation of the age. At present it can
not be so considered ; and its claims, therefore,
to take the lead in the curriculum of education
are inadmissible. While it is labouring to
attain that position, 1 would advise its votaries
to aid those of classical instruction in securing
the great advantages of the training I have
recommended. The minds so prepared would
be the fittest of all for sharing in the researches
of science, and promoting its triumphs.
�APPENDIX.
It is necessary to say this, since the confound
A. (See page 11.)
ing of the two is evident in many of the docu
In a very interesting address of Lord Ash ments that have been published of late on these
burton’s, at the Meeting of Schoolmasters in very important subjects. Many persons seem
Manchester, in 1853, we find the follow to fancy that the elements that should consti
ing remarkable words :—“ In this progressive tute a sound and manly education are anta
country we neglect all that knowledge in which gonistic ; that the cultivation of taste through
there is progress, to devote ourselves to those purely literary studies, and of reasoning
branches in which we are scarcely, if at all, supe through logic and mathematics, one or both,
rior to our ancestors. In this practical country, is opposed to the training in the equally im
theknowledgeof all thatgives power over nature portant matter of observation through those
is left to be picked up by chance on a man’s sciences that are descriptive and experimental.
way through life. In this religious country, Surely this is an error. Partisanship of the
the knowledge of God’s works forms no part one or other method, or rather department, of
of the education of the people, no part even mental training, to the exclusion of the rest,
of the accomplishments of a gentleman.” is a narrow-minded and cramping view, from
It appears from this passage that Lord Ash whatsoever point it be taken. Equal develop
burton does, after all, consider this to be a ment and strengthening of all are required for
progressive, practical, and religious country, the constitution of the complete mind ; and it
though nothing would seem to be done to is full time that we should begin to do now
make it so. The work goes on, and bravely what we ought to have done long ago.”
too, in spite of the assumed general low level
of attainments, and the indifference with
regard to progress. Lord Ashburton does
C. (Seep. 19.)
not see that there is, in fact, no “ common
“ The purpose of Milton, as it seems, was
measure” between the progress of a nation to teach something more solid than the com
and that of an individual. The time may mon literature of schools, by reading those
come when the progress of knowledge and the I authors that treat of physical subjects, such
practical applications of it may be tenfold as the Georgic (i.e. agricultural) and astrono
what they now are. But we shall still have to mical treatises of the ancients. This was a
consider the average capacity of the race as a scheme of improvement which seems to have
“constant quantity,’’and frame our curriculum busied many literary projectors of that age.
accordingly. The progress in question arises Cowley, who had more means than Milton of
from the impulses generated in the minds of knowing what was wanting in the embellish
those who, being endowed beyond their fellows, ments of life, formed the same plan of education
stand forth as their leaders to the promised in hi3 imaginary college.
land ; but the common mass have to begin at
“ But the truth is, that the knowledge of
the beginning still in their instruction, just as external nature, and the sciences which that
if none had gone before them.
knowledge requires or includes, are not the
great or the frequent business of the. human
mind. Whether we provide for action or con
B. (See page 17.)
versation, whether we wish to be useful or
The following valuable remarks on the cul pleasing, the first requisite is the religious and
tivation of the observing powers are from an moral knowledge of right and wrong; the
“ Introductory Lecture” on the Educational next is an acquaintance with the history of
Uses of Museums, by the late Professor Ed mankind, and with those examples which may
ward Forbes, 1865:—
be said to embody truth and prove by events
“ The great defect of our systems of educa the reasonableness of opinions. Prudence and
tion is the neglect of the educating of the ob justice are virtues and excellencies of all times
serving powers—a very distinct matter, be it and of all places; we are perpetually moralists,
noted, from scientific or industrial instruction. but we are geometricians only by chance. Our
�30
intercourse with intellectual nature is neces
sary ; our speculations upon matter are volun
tary and at leisure. Physiological (physical?)
learning is of such rare emergence that a man
may know another half his life without being
able to estimate his skill in hydrostatics or
astronomy; but his moral and prudential cha
racter immediately appears. Those authors,
therefore, are to be read at schools that supply
most maxims of prudence, most principles of
moral truth, and most materials for conversa
tion; and these purposes are best served by
poets, orators, and historians.” (Johnson’s
Lives of the Poets, vol. i. p. 92.)
D.
(See page 23.)
E.
_ Subjoined is a scheme of an amended cur
riculum :—
First Stage of Instruction.
(From about eight to twelve years of age.)
First Division (about two years).
1. Reading, Spelling, and Writing.
2. History, Scriptural and English.
3. Geography, Topographical and Physical.
4. French, Elementary Speaking and Read
ing.
5. Lessons on Objects.
6. Lessons on Words.
7. Arithmetic, chiefly Mental.
Second Division (about two years).
Same subjects, as far as may be necessary,
with
Arithmetic, as an art generally.
Botany, Structural ana Systematic.
Elementary Physics, general facts and
phenomena.
English Grammar, Parsing and Analysis
of Sentences.
Merely as a suggestion, the following scheme 1.
for the study of Latin may be proposed :—
2.
1. Dr. W. Smith’s Principia Latina, Parts I. 3.
and II.
4.
2. C®sar—De Bello Gallico.
3. Virgil—Eclogse, books 1, 3, 4, and 5.
Georgica, books 1 and 2.
Second Stage of Instruction.
JEneis, books I, 2, 3, 6, and 12.
(From about twelve to sixteen years of age.)
4. Cicero—Oratio pro Milone.
First Division (about two years).
Orationes in Catilinam.
Proportion of
De Amicitia.
time, taking
5. Livy, books 1 and 21.
40 hours per
week for
6. Terence—Andria.
school-work.
7. Tacitus—Agricola.
1. Latin, taught as a training subject 20
Annales, books 1 and 2.
2. French and German, practical
8. Horace—Odse, Epistolse, and Ars Poetica.
mainly ....................................
5
3. Mathematics, especially Euclid ...
5
This matter should be thoroughly studied in 4. Physics, taught as a training sub
the spirit of the method described in the text
ject ...........................................
6
(pp. 13, 20, 21), and would require therefore’to 5. English Language and Literature 5
be gone over, parts of it at least—the Caesar and
Second Division (about two years).
Virgil—three times: first very slowly, weighing
and investigating nearly every word; the second 1. Latin (time diminished)............... 10
time less deliberately, improving the transla 2. French and German (time increased
for more composition) ........... 10
tion and enlarging the illustration; and the
third time rapidly and in good English, so as 3. Mathematics — analytical, with
practical applications ...........
5
to evince familiarity with both language and
matter. The passages from Virgil and Horace 4. Chemistry or Human Physiology 10
5. English Language and Literature 5
should be committed to memory.
Of course “Latin” and “English” both in
clude the subjects—such as geography, history,
archaeology—which may be necessary for their
illustration.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The curriculum of modern education, and the respective claims of classics and science to be represented: being the substance of two lectures delivered at the monthly evening meetings of the College of Perceptors, April 11th, & May 9th, 1866
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Payne, Joseph [1808-1876.]
Description
An account of the resource
Payne presents his recommendations for the reformation of the curriculum. He writes of his belief that science should be fully introduced and that education should represent the spirit of the age.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription on title page: With the author's compliments. Printed in double columns. Includes appendices.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Virtue, Brothers, & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1866
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5191
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The curriculum of modern education, and the respective claims of classics and science to be represented: being the substance of two lectures delivered at the monthly evening meetings of the College of Perceptors, April 11th, & May 9th, 1866), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Classical Education
Education
Science and Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dca858c7316decd78c663bbe8d4890d9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vtp4Ty30j28wuKWZtktU5InMv5lU1RaG0geydfSZAuvHjQts4%7E-d2%7E7OknxwJD9sMwEpf%7EGpTdteKCgT-PM2phmo3zzJZAuqeXmooMrZcOiThvdd13L5U0beq5M9M-5plHn1EoghUL4cGOPXtAZr4WBUZVZ6Ks0TVrCNgtwiSuiS18N5UW5xrZrRYZrRWYbgFc1x9ujC8bv0O2iqwn3V11%7EORdiRDh-o%7Et8i0pijGaA-j-x-dWE9B91KgubZol5euvPsXIZ2PjkhVgzid4lQ-68QaDYQHHRG4%7EB8sFmhhF33BJ8Ggf4MWtdKqWDE8Wti9dfXI8JlV6sQdTHMOmsfBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e9b13d1203b31aeb66ec8111347d6ea4
PDF Text
Text
Art. VI. — The Higher Education of the United States.
(1.) LInstruction Publique aux ftats-Unis, Ecoles Publiques,
Colleges, Universites, Ecoles Speciales. Rapport adresse au
Ministre de VInstruction. Publique, par M. 0. Hippeau, Professeur de Faculte Honoraire, &c. Paris. 1870.
(2.) The Educational Institutions of the United States: their
Character and Organization. Translated from the Swedish of
P. A. Siljestrom, by Frederica Rowan. 1853.
(3.) A Visit to some American Schools and Colleges. By Sophia
Jex Blake. 1867.
(4.) Various Reports:—Minnesota, Wisconsin, Chicago, Iowa,
1 llinois, a/nd Cornell Universities; Lafayette, New York City,
and Da/rtmouth Colleges; Norwich and other Free Academies;
various Polytechnic Institutes and Industrial Universities ; State
Normal Schools, and Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other Agri
cultural Colleges. 1867-8-9.
(5.) Reports of Vassar College for Young Ladies, and of Oberlin for
Youth of both Sexes.
(6.) The Daily Public School in the United States. Philadelphia.
1866.
1
.About a year and a half ago, we gave in this Review a tolerably
full account of the system of primary education pursued in the
United. States. We developed at some length the theory on
which it is founded—a theory unique in the history of educa
tion—which, regarding the people as potentially the rulers of
the nation, assumes that the Government, as representing its
collective will, has a right and a corresponding obligation
to secure for every member of the community, at its own
charge, instruction and training sufficient to prepare him to
exercise his duties as a citizen; and we showed both the
remarkable general success, as well as some of the conspicuous
shortcomings, of the actual working of the system. The sub
stantial accuracy, both of our facts and deductions, has been
admitted by competent authorities in the United States. Mean
time, the complaints of truancy, late attendance, apathy of
parents, culpable neglect of country school-boards, untrained and
inefficient teachers, poor school-houses, &c., are rather increasing
than diminishing, and the demands for authoritative interven
tion to adjust the practice to the theory wax louder and louder.
The political problem, indeed, of reconciling the almost un
bounded liberty of the American citizen with the right of the
State to constrain obedience, is still, it must be confessed, far
�2
Theory of American Primary Education.
from being solved; and this state of things largely influences the
condition of primary education in the United States. It is only
those who are ignorant of the facts that talk of that condition as
satisfactory ; all who carefully investigate them know that it
is not. It can, however, scarcely be doubted that the resolute
will of the nation will in time overcome this difficulty, and that
we shall see ‘ the most extensively educated people in the world’
(Fraser and Hippeau) also the most soundly educated.
We found this conviction in a great degree on the remark
able development within the last few years of the higher
education of the country, the influence of which cannot, in the
nature of things, fail greatly to stimulate and improve the lower.
We propose in this paper to describe at some length the
machinery by which that higher education is carried out, and in
doing so to testify to the spirit, energy, and intelligence of the
nation—the intelligence which perceives what is wanting to
place its educational institutions on a par with those of the
most advanced countries of the world, and the spirit and energy
which are devising the means for supplying it. In accomplishing
our purpose, we shall have to repeat a few of the particulars
before given, in order to present a clear view of the relation
between the several parts of the system.
The theory of American primary education contemplates a
continued course of instruction to be carried on at the public ex
pense between the fifth and eighteenth years of the pupil’s age.
When this course is concluded the responsibility of the State
ceases; it has prepared the youth for his d uties as a citizen.
Should he, for professional or other purposes, wish to continue
his education, he must, unless exceptionally aided by scholar
ships, &c., pursue it at his own charge. The full course of
elementary instruction which the State thus offers free of charge
to all its citizens, male and female, embraces three stages—
(1) the Primary School, for children of from five to eight or
nine years of age ; (2) the Grammar School, for those from nine
to thirteen; and (3) the High School, for those between thirteen
or fourteen and eighteen years of age. Together they form the
‘common-school’ system, and are so organically connected that a
child commencing the course in the primary school at five years
of age may pursue it, stage by stage, until he emerges at the
age of eighteen from the high school, prepared to commence the
ordinary business of life, or to enter on a collegiate or special
professional career of advanced instruction. This system, it
will be observed, offers not merely elementary but also superior
education to all the citizens ; such superior education, indeed, as
in other countries is generally monopolized by the rich and
�The Higher Education of the United States.
3
privileged classes. M. Hippeau enthusiastically descants on the
*
conception thus presented to his view :—
‘ Where,’ he says (p. 335), ‘is the nation that can boast, as the
Americans do, of possessing schools in which the whole juvenile popu
lation can learn, without charge, not only reading, writing, arithmetic,
drawing, and a little geography and history, as they do in our primary
schools, but everything which constitutes that secondary education
which amongst us is reserved for families in easy circumstances, and
which some timid spirits believe cannot be offered without danger to
the children of the working classes ? ’
The high schools, or schools for secondary education, which
we now proceed to describe in detail, form the culminating point
of the common-school system, and are in some respects its most
satisfactory exponent. The instruction given in them is con
ducted almost uniformly by men of eminent attainments, long
experience in teaching, and great zeal, who are as a general rule
fairly rewarded for their labours, a point by no means sufficiently
provided for in the case of the primary and grammar-school
masters, who are often miserably underpaid. The result is that
the high schools, especially in the larger towns, attain a very
advanced degree of excellence. Bishop Fraser, in describing
those of Boston, speaks of the American High School as one
which he would have liked, had it been possible, to ‘ put under a
‘ glass case and bring to England for exhibition, as a type of a
‘ thoroughly useful middle-class school.’ He was particularly
struck by ‘ the excellent spirit that seemed to pervade it—the
‘ healthy, honest, thorough way in which the work, both of
‘ masters and pupils, seemed to be done.’ The energy and life
of the high schools generally is attested by all who visit them.
M. Hippeau thus describes his own impressions on this point,
and in doing so also illustrates the external machinery of the
system:—
‘Wherever,’ he says (p. 72), ‘I have found these superior schools
established, I have witnessed in the pupils an eagerness to do well,
* M. Hippeau was deputed, in 1868, by M. Duruy, the then Minister
of Public Instruction in France, to examine into the education generally
of the United States. In November, 1869, he presented his very interest
ing Report to M. Bourbeau, M. Duruy’s successor. M. Hippeau examined
the whole field of American education, and reports upon it all in the most
favourable sense possible. He scarcely indeed hints at a fault anywhere.
All is couleur de rose. This somewhat indiscriminate panegyric detracts
from the value of his judgment respecting the merits of the American
system as a whole. He was evidently unprepared for the energy, zeal,
public spirit, and intelligence which characterize the efforts made, in the
large towns especially, to advance popular education, and eulogizes,
therefore, rather than criticises, what he saw.
�4
High School Curriculum.
a zeal, an emulation, which indicate the value that they attach to the
studies which they have voluntarily chosen for their course. They
pursue them without requiring constraint or severe discipline. Ample
and well-ventilated class-rooms in elegant buildings, provided with
everything that can render study attractive and profitable, libraries,
cabinets of chemistry, physics, and natural history, museums, musichalls, gymnasia for military exercises, short sessions, varied exercises,
frequent recreation—everything contributes to make these noble
institutions, confided often to the direction of superior men, interesting
to the pupils/
The curriculum of studies pursued with the advantage of
these means and influences is large and comprehensive. It
embraces classics, foreign languages (especially French and
German), mathematics in their fullest extent, with practical appli
cations to mensuration, surveying, navigation, &c.; political
economy, logic, mental and moral philosophy, natural theology,
the physical sciences, practical mechanics and engineering,
together with the English language and literature. It is not,
of course, to be imagined that every pupil introduced to this
formidable programme of arts and sciences ventures upon more
than a small portion of it. After a few months spent in ascer
taining that the foundation previously laid in the grammar
school is solid and may be depended upon, the parents of the
pupils are required to select for their children such studies ’ as
they may wish them to pursue, and from that time the course
determined on is maintained to the end. In the larger towns
there are Latin high schools, in which classical instruction takes
the lead, and English high schools, in which science and general
subjects are substituted for classics; the former answering, with
notable differences, to the Gymnasia, and the latter to the RealSchulen of Germany. All pupils are admitted on a ‘ thorough
and searching examination’ (Fraser), held twice in the year by
the principal and teachers of the high school, under the super
vision of the committee of the school, with a view to perfect
impartiality; ‘the reputation of the grammar schools being sup‘ posed to depend in public estimation upon the number of
‘ candidates which they succeed in passing.’ No pupil under
twelve years of age is allowed to compete for entrance, and in
many cases it is stipulated that the candidate must have attended
the grammar school for at least twelve months. The average
age of the pupils who pass is thirteen. About one-fourth of the
candidates are annually rejected, and sent down to the.grammar
schools from whence they came for further preparation. The
subjects of the entrance examination are in most cases spelling
(to which a high degree of importance is attached), reading,
�The Higher Education of the United States.
b
arithmetic, modern geography, and the history of the United
States. With this equipment the pupil enters the high school
course, which lasts for -four or five years, and ends, in some few
■of the larger towns—in Philadelphia, for instance—in the
attainment of a diploma attesting satisfactory advancement.
As an illustration of the intelligent teaching found in the
best of these schools, we may quote a passage from Bishop
Fraser’s Report. He was present himself during a lesson
in English literature, given at the girls’ high school at Boston
to a class of girls of about eighteen years of age. It consisted,
he says, of—
‘ reading, paraphrasing, grammatical analysis, mutual criticism, and
general literary appreciation and taste. The class bad commenced the
play of “ Hamlet,” and were engaged that day on a passage from the
first scene of the first act. It was read by one girl, paraphrased by
another; the paraphrase had to run the gauntlet of general criticism;
questions were proposed as to the meaning of this phrase, the definite
allusion in that; objections were raised to this and that interpretation,
illustrations were adduced, and the whole exercise was characterized
by much spirit and life.’
Mr. Anthony Trollope, in his ‘ North America,’ had pre
viously given an amusing account of his visit to a ladies’ school
at Boston which he does not name, but which was probably that
which is above referred to :—
‘In one of the schools,’ he says, ‘they were reading “Milton,” and
when we entered were discussing the nature of the pool in which the
devil is described as wallowing. The question had been raised by one
of the girls—a pool, so called, was supposed to contain but a small
amount of water, and how could the devil, being so large, get into it ?
Then came the origin of the word “ pool,” from
a marsh, as we
were told—some dictionary attesting to the fact—and such a marsh
might cover a large expanse. The “ Palus Meeotis ” was then quoted.
And so we went on, till Satan’s theory of political liberty, “Better to
reign in hell than serve in heaven,” was thoroughly discussed and
understood. These girls of sixteen or seventeen got up one after
another, and gave their opinions on the subject, how far the devil was
right, and how far he was manifestly wrong.’
He then expresses his surprise at the remarkable ease and
self-possession with which the girls discussed such questions—
‘just as easy in their demeanour as though they were stitching
‘ handkerchiefs at home.’
Notwithstanding the fun that Mr. Trollope gets out of his
peep into a girls’ class of literary critics, there can be no
doubt that much intellectual life is kindled and sustained by
the practice above described, which evidently aims at bringing
�6
Teaching of English Composition.
the pupil’s mind into as complete a contact as possible with the
author’s. It would be well if something of this ‘ spirit’ could be
substituted in many of our schools of superior instruction for the
stolid, stultifying adoration of the ‘ letter,’ which finds and
leaves the pupil’s mind entirely on the outside of the text which
he is professedly studying. At the same time we venture to
consider it very desirable, that while much indulgence is granted
to young pupils in their early efforts to think, a corrective
in the shape of definite knowledge should always be at hand,
lest easy speculations about morals, religion, and political topics,
eliciting no doubt much native talent, but not tending to
mental discipline, should come to be estimated at too high a
rate. A stricter training would probably do much to repress
that ‘tall talk’, which prevails so much in America, and which
so conclusively indicates the defective cultivation of the person
who indulges in it.
*
The tendency to this elevated style is, it must be admitted,
even fostered at some of the girls’ high schools by the practice of
handing over to the press, instead of to the waste-paper basket,
compositions which evince nothing whatever but the remarkable
immaturity of the writers’ minds, and the need of close and
severe mental discipline. It would be easy to illustrate this
morbid state of things by quotations from ‘Prize Essays’
before us; but it would be hardly fair to the writers to laugh at
them, inasmuch as the persons chiefly to blame are the teachers,
who have so badly consulted the interests of their pupils as to
let the world know that such essays ever were written. If we
judged, then, of the high-school system by its too frequent pro
duct in the matter of English composition, we should pronounce
it to be showy, flimsy, and unsatisfactory ; but we do not. The
mistake in such cases as this is not the production, but the
publication, of school exercises as specimens of English ‘composi
tion ; ’ a point in regard to which, as we have hinted, the teachers’
reputation, rather than the pupils’, is impeached. The tendency
to inflation and bombast in style is, however, by no means
* Take the following specimen, extracted from a speech delivered
in Congress three or four years ago. The speaker is referring to the
fruits of the recent war: —‘No gentle speech, “no candy courtesies,”
no dull oblivion of the pregnant past, befits the crisis that is on us
now. We have just trodden the wine-press of revolution, to encounter
at its closing doors the bloodier form of anarchy; while the untamed
fiends of the rebellion, their appetites inflamed and their hands drip
ping with the blood of the martyrs, laughed—as none but the damned
could laugh—at the rising vision, but dimly foreshadowed by the St.
Bartholomew’s of Memphis and New Orleans, of the opening of another
seal, which should turn our rivers into blood, and visit upon us and our
children more than apocalyptic woes.’
�The Higher Education of the United States.
7
confined to the crude exercises of pupils; it pervades the reports
of school superintendents, in which, not unfrequently, very small
thoughts are dressed up in unconscionably voluminous folds of
words. This ‘incontinence of words’ is a remarkable trait in
the educational literature of America. The late Horace Mann
—a man worthy of all reverence for his most honourable
labours in the cause of education—afforded frequent instances of
it in his, in other respects, valuable reports. He was by no
means convinced—at least, his practice belied such a conviction
—that the ‘ bright consummate flower’ of the highest literary
effort is simplicity. As regards this question of ‘ English com
position’ generally, we venture to suggest, by the way, that
the aim should be rather practical than literary, and that the
elementary teacher who succeeds in getting his pupils to write
with ease, simplicity, and grammatical accuracy on the commonest
topics of daily life and experience, does them a far better service
than the teacher who stimulates them to literary effort. The
seed-time should never be confounded with that of flowers and
fruits.
In view of the provision of a complete course of elementary
instruction for every citizen of the nation, it is natural to inquire
how far it is actually carried out. It is evident that the theory
can only be fully satisfied by the passing of all the children who
attend the elementary schools through the entire course. We
see, however, in what takes place in America in this as well
as in many other respects how difficult, indeed, how im
possible it often is, to realise a plausible theory. In the case
before us the theory which assumes that a certain quantity
of instruction (to say nothing of quality) is necessary for the
proper equipment of a citizen for his duties, is defeated by many
adverse causes, and especially by the imperative demands of
society for the work of its citizens, be their education what it
may. It appears from the report of a New York assistant
superintendent (quoted by Bishop Fraser), that ‘ not more than
‘ one-half of the children who attend the primary schools ever
‘ enter the grammar schools,’ and ‘ that a considerable number
‘ do not even complete the primary course ’—that is, they leave
school at about nine years of age. The general result indeed is,
that only about one in one hundred of those who enter the pri
mary schools ever pass on to the high schools; and of these about
one-fourth stop short at different stages of the higher course.
In Boston the proportion is about one in thirty-three, while in
Philadelphia it is only one in one hundred and fifty. Again,
it must be remembered that these statistics apply only to large
towns, in which alone high schools are required to be set up.
�4,
Charges against the High School System.
The law of Massachusetts—a State which presents the best
type of American education—requires a high school to be
established in towns of more than 4,000 inhabitants. In towns
of 5.00 inhabitants the grammar school, with its very limited
curriculum, is the necessary consummation of the theory of
‘ a complete course of instruction for all the citizens of the
‘ State? We state these facts, not with the view of reproaching
the Americans with their failures, but to correct that somewhat
loose and vague manner of talking about American education,
which confounds the theory with the facts.
It is important, in considering the general question of the
value of superior education to a commonwealth, to call attention
to the complaints which are beginning to be very freely raised
by some of the enlightened educationists of America, that the
superior or high school education is unwisely stimulated to
the injury of the lower and more essential instruction. It must
be remembered that at present gratuitous instruction is furnished
not only to the poorer classes, whose circumstances require help,
but also to those classes who do not need it, and who receive it
as a means of advancing the interests of their children by
preparing them for active and professional life. Now, the
training of the latter class involves an immense expenditure at
the public charge on the few who receive it, and the question is,
whether it is wise or just to lavish public money in stimulating
that which it is alleged would be secured in the case of those
really requiring it, through private and personal means
In
other words, the question is, whether the promotion of superior
education at the public expense brings with it an advantage to
the public interest, which compensates for the imperfect accom
plishment of the theory of ‘ the education of the citizen ’ in
the primary schools ? The author of the very interesting pam
phlet on 1 The Daily Public School in the United States,’ which
has been much quoted lately in England (especially by that
eminent educational authority, Lord Robert Montagu), argues
this question at length, and. shows, by adducing an immense
body of facts, as we also showed in our former article, that the
primary school system throughout the States generally is in a
very unsatisfactory condition, while at the same time the ambi
tion of the people leads to the unnatural—as he views it—
encouragement at the public expense of schools for superior
instruction. His views may be gathered from the following
extract:—
‘We shall not,’ he says (p. 24), ‘be understood as denying that
instruction of various and much higher grades than the daily public
school supplies should be easy of access to all who are disposed to seek
�The Higher Education of the United States.
9
it, but we maintain that this should be the natural outgrowth of the
public school, and should be sustained by other means than a general
public tax. The income from that source should be restricted to the
thorough accomplishment of the preliminary work. Why should we
not educate machinists, engineers, and farmers at the public charge, as
well as book-keepers and bank clerks 1 ’
To show that this question is not one of speculation only,
we may refer to the fact that in 1866 a motion was introduced
into the City Council of Philadelphia for disallowing the funds
for supporting the Boys'’ High School. The mover stated his
belief that a ‘majority of the citizens were in favour of abolishing
4 the school.’ 4 We tax the people,’ he went on to say, 4 to give
4 them an equal system of education, but only about four per
4 cent, of the pupils can be educated in the high school. Of
4 those educated there, at least seventy per cent, are drones
4 upon the community.’ This speaker, however, showed that
it was not sordid considerations of expenditure, but a patriotic
desire for the real interests of the commonwealth, which moved
him, by expressing his desire that the money gained by the
abolition of the high school should be expended in raising the
standard of instruction in the lower schools. Another speaker
insisted that they 4 should compel every child to attend school
4 until a certain age. He thought the 27,000 dollars asked for
4 the high school would be of more service if appropriated to
4 educate those who now never go to school. The city should
4 give a fair English education and nothing else.’ Another
4 doubted the propriety of maintaining a college out of the money
4 of the taxpayer;’ and a fourth 4 was in favour of abolishing
4 the high school, because the grammar schools would then be
4 fostered, and the system of cramming a few pupils to get them
4 in (into) the high school done away with.’ The grant was,
however, in the end carried, and the high school maintained.
It came out as a curious and anomalous feature of this debate,
that a motion for increasing the salaries of the teachers of the
primary schools (and thus, one would think, increasing the
desired efficiency of these schools) was negatived by a con
siderable majority. The writer of the pamphlet referred to;
after showing in some detail that the highest education of the
country was well provided for by the multiplication and ample
endowments of classical, polytechnic, and commercial colleges
of various grades, thus pursues his argument to its legitimate
conclusion:—4 So that in fact the real educational wants of the
4 country, in these higher grades, would be well supplied without
4 the elaborate and expensive machinery of high and normal
4 schools sustained at the public charge; and,’ he adds, 4 there is
*
�10
Imrortance of Principles and Theories.
‘ no principle sounder and more practical, touching the functions
‘ of government, whether civil or domestic, than that it should
‘ not do for people what people can and should do for themselves.’
At the same time he repeats his disclaimer of any desire to abate
in the slightest degree the interest that is felt in the higher
grades of schools. ‘We have no controversy,’ he says, ‘with
‘ the friends and advocates of the largest liberality in dealing
‘ with the whole question of popular education. Let the super‘ structure have whatever magnitude and fashion it may, our
‘ eyes are just now fixed on the foundation. Our fear (we may
‘ almost say our belief) is, that through neglect of this, and the
‘ desire to make a lasting and imposing display in school archi‘ tecture (material and metaphorical), we shall find sooner or
‘ later that even if we have a reading, we shall not have an
‘ educated people.’
The grave importance of the question at issue, as above stated,
must be our apology for the space we have given to it. It is
important, both in an economical and political point of view. To
give to those who are not in need what you withhold from those
who are, is bad economy; to stimulate to ambitious display
while you neglect what is fundamental but comparatively
obscure, is bad policy. On the other hand, it may be justly
argued that the encouragement of the higher education tends
to raise the standard of the lower, and that no nation can hope
to attain the highest rank which fails to appreciate the im
portance of the highest cultivation.
*
It is essential to diffuse as
widely as possible practical instruction suited to the daily wants
of the people; but it is also most important to carry on the in
struction so as to embrace principles and theories, which consti
tute, after all, the goal to be aimed at in a complete course of
mental training. The man of rules and formulae is not strictly
speaking an educated man, nor can he be so considered until he
is in possession of principles and theories as well. It is these
especially which give life and power; that life which quickens
life in others, that power which emancipates from the slavery
of routine. The man who merely understands the formula
2 + 2 = 4 is, as the accomplished author of the ‘ Autocrat of the
Breakfast Table’ ingeniously remarks, in a totally different
intellectual condition from the man who understands « + &=<?.
‘ We are mere operatives, empirics, and egotists, until we learn
‘ to think in letters instead of figures.’ At the same time,
however, that we admit the importance of encouraging by
incidental means, such as private endowments, &c., the culti* ‘ Le peuple qui a les meilleures ecoles est le premier peuple.’—Jules
Simon.
�The Higher Education of the United States.
11
vation of exceptional native talent, we rather agree with the
dissidents whose opinions we have cited in doubting whether
it is a duty of the State to supply with gratuitous education at
the public charge, those whose avowed object it is to make that
education merely a means of personal advancement. It is the
more important that we should in England understand this
question, as even now many students are receiving at the public
expense, in our normal schools for primary teachers, a course of
education which does not benefit the public service, inasmuch
as—so we are informed—an increasing number of certificated
masters, ostensibly trained for the public service, is regularly
employed in private schools. We cannot, however, pursue the
subject further in this place.
It is sufficiently evident from what we have said that the
high schools are the most characteristic and most successful
feature of the American system. The education given in the
primary schools (including the grammar schools) is not, perhaps,
on the whole, superior in quality to that given in our own
schools conducted by certificated masters, though the system of
grading by which, as we have before explained, the different
classes of schools are organically connected together, tends to
stimulate the more ambitious scholars to efforts transcending
those generally put forth among us. The number of such
energetic spirits, as tested by their advancement from one
grade to another, is, however, as we have shown, compara
tively small. Our remarks are intended to apply to the great
bulk of the schools, as scattered over the whole country,
*
and taught very generally in rural districts by utterly un
qualified teachers, who, itinerating from district to district every
few months in search of better pay, have no real interest in
the profession which they have for the time adopted, and whose
work is very rarely' tested by authoritative and competent
inspectors. These are not the schools which visitors are invited
to admire ; on the contrary, the reports of school superintendents
are filled to overflowing with complaints of their many and
striking defects—defects as regards management, school-work
ing, methods of teaching, and, in short, almost all the
acknowledged characteristics of really good schools.f It is
* It is computed that about twenty-eight out of every thirty children
in the United States attend the schools of the rural districts. It is to
them, therefore, and not to the privileged minority, that our remarks
apply.
t Some of these reports were quoted in our former article. The
following extract from ‘ The Daily Public School in the United States,’
as to the general results, is worth quoting, though the words are those
of a witness who is obviously concerned in making out a case:—‘ Such
�12
College and University Education.
true that they are gradually improving, and mainly because
female teachers, not so much given to wandering restlessly about
as the men, and qualified by zeal and earnestness and a fair
amount of knowledge, have in so many instances since the war
superseded the masters.
In passing from the High Schools to the Academies, Colleges,
and Universities of the United States, it is important to observe
that the latter have no organic connection with the former.
The commonwealth has done its work when it has conducted
its young citizens to the threshold of the collegiate course.
If they wish for further instruction, they must expect to gain
it, as a general rule, at their own charge, and in their own way.
Their special pecuniary or personal interests are supposed to
supply the requisite stimulus to further effort. The State has,
by theory, made them well-informed and well-trained men, but
it does not engage to make them architects, lawyers, engineers,
or farmers. The professional education necessary for success in
these pursuits is regarded simply as the means towards a
personal end, that end being presumably the attainment of
lucrative and honourable positions in cultivated society. As,
however, the State is itself interested in having these positions
occupied by well-qualified men, it comes forward, in many
cases, especially in that of the agricultural colleges, with sub
stantial aid towards the attainment of this object. In general,
however, the colleges and universities of America are the
product of magnificent private endowments, furnished by the
patriotic zeal of individuals, and are quite independent, in all
that concerns their internal management, of State control or
interference. The arrangement of studies, the appointment of
professors, and the distribution of funds, are directed by the
constituted authorities of the institutions themselves, and all
that the State has to do with them is to secure them in their
independence.
It is interesting to contrast for a moment the difference
between the spirit which has called these establishments into
being, with that which controls machinery of the same kind in
some of the older countries, for example in France, a point on
which M. Hippeau dwells with considerable fervour. In the
one case, we see individual or local effort taking the initiative,
‘ observation as we have been enabled to make in interviews with many
‘ thousands of children and youth [in the rural districts] satisfies us that
< nine in ten of them are incompetent to read properly a paragraph in the
‘ newspaper, to keep a simple debtor and creditor account in a mechanic’s
‘ shop, or to write an ordinary business letter in a creditable way, as to
< chirography, orthography, or a grammatical expression of ideas ’—
(p. 11).
�The Higher Education of the United States.
13
relying on itself for success, contriving its own machinery, and
only seeking to prevent that interference with its free action
which would compromise or neutralize its inherent spirit. In
the other we see a central administration, directing all the
schools, colleges, and universities of the country, appointing all
their officers, fixing all their programmes and methods of
instruction, specifying the text-books to be employed, and
regulating and controlling all the expenses. The end aimed at
in the two cases is the same; but how widely different the spirit
and the means ! We do not ourselves quite agree with M.
Hippeau in considering, as he appears to do, the one system as
altogether wrong, and the other altogether right. Centrali
zation is, we know, the bete noire of the Americans, to be shunned
and abhorred, as they believe, in its every aspect; but we also
know that, especially as regards their common school system,
they are at this moment suffering severely for their unwise
dread of it, and that the recent appointment of Mr. Barnard,
as the Minister or Commissioner, as they style him, of public
instruction, though a virtual compromise of the principle, has
been already attended with most beneficial results. When—
and that time will surely come—it is seen that a truly repre
sentative government is simply the embodiment of the popular
will, the co-ordination of the two apparently opposing forces of
centralization and decentralization will achieve successfully much
that is now accomplished feebly and imperfectly. Leaving,
however, this question unsolved, we proceed to quote again
from M. Hippeau a passage in which he paints in glowing
colours the actual working of the collegiate system in the United
States:—
‘ These colleges,’ he says, ‘ are not located in the midst of populous
towns, but generally in their neighbourhood, and are surrounded by
a pleasant open country, where the pupils breathe pure air, and can
walk without constraint by the banks of the brooks, or under the
avenues formed by grand old trees (arbres seculaires). Many separate
buildings, each having a special destination—chapel, class-rooms, library,
common hall, cabinet of natural history, scientific museums—are
grouped round the residence of the president. On all sides elegant
cottages serve as dwellings for the professors, who may there serenely
give themselves up to their favourite studies. Lastly, at no great
distance from the college there are private houses where the pupils
find board and lodging, ignorant of the vexations and restraints of
discipline, following the course of study laid down by their teachers,
working at their own time (ck leurs Aeures),and finding close at
hand all the necessary appliances, supplied for their use at great cost.
With the professors their relations are those of affectionate respect.
They listen to their advice with deference, and gather from their
�14
‘ Mixed ’ Colleges for both Sexes.
instructions a mass of information which happily supplements the
teaching of the class-room’—(p. 199).
We will not mar this charming picture by a word of suspicious
criticism, but proceed to describe in detail such of these insti
tutions as are characterized by special features.
Among them stand out some which, as far as we know, are
unique in conception, and well deserve our careful attention.
We refer to such as collect together under one roof, or, at least,
in one locality, and under one direction, large numbers of young
men and women for the purposes of united instruction. There
are so many obvious theoretical objections to such an arrange
ment, that we hear with some surprise of its remarkable
and increasing success.
M. Hippeau was fairly struck with
amazement at the working of a system which, as he could
not but allow, would be utterly impossible in France, and
which we must also allow, would be all but impossible in
England. We can well believe that the flagrant ‘ gallantry ’ of the
French, the ‘drinking habits’ so prevalent in some of our public
schools, the sensuality and debauchery of Sandhurst, and the
Vandalism lately displayed at Christ Church, Oxford (we refer
only to facts publicly stated), would accord but indifferently with
the moral habits of institutions in which ‘ all use of intoxicating
liquors ’ and even smoking are strictly forbidden —regulations
*
which, as appears by all the evidence accessible, exist not only
on paper but in fact. We do not pretend to discuss all the
phases of the interesting social and educational problem pre
sented by these ‘ mixed ’ colleges, involving as it does, amongst
other speculative questions, that of the mental equality of the
sexes; but we may fairly contend that if students of both
sexes could be brought together in pursuit of a common object
without danger to morals, many economical and social ad
vantages would result. Men would become more refined, -and
women more self-reliant, while it would be more generally
acknowledged that women have an especial stake in the interests
of society, with an ability and a right to discuss them, which
are now, to the detriment of those interests themselves, so fre
quently ignored or denied. AVe hold it to be an omen of
especial promise that women’s opinions are, amongst ourselves,
gradually but energetically acting on public opinion itself, and
moulding it, as we believe, for good. The extravagance which
manifests itself occasionally here, and to a far greater extent in
* ‘La defense de ftnner, partout prescrite et partout violee (in France),
‘ est scrupuleusement observee a Oberlin grace a la presence des jeunes
‘ filles, envers lesquelles aucun eleve ne voudrait manquer d egards.
—Hippeau, p. 111.
�The Higher Education of the United States.
15
America, in the utterance of those opinions, will be gradually,
we doubt not, corrected by the very exercise of the right to
express them, in proportion as women generally—not merely
‘ advanced women ’—take part in such discussions. When the
spectacle of well-informed, intelligent, sensible women, devoting
their special qualifications of acute perception, ready tact,
and aptness for business to the problems of society, shall
become less rare than it now is, we firmly believe we shall be
much nearer the solution of those problems. We further
believe that the improved education of women is the direct
means to that end, and that it is highly probable, though,
perhaps, not as yet proved, that the association together of the
sexes from earliest youth in the pursuit of a common object, in
which both are so deeply interested, is destined, by the mutual
aid and incentive it affords, to be the most powerful agency by
which that improved education will be secured. As to the
question of the capacity of women to compete in the intellectual
field, as far as common education is concerned, we hesitate not
to say that the American experience has removed it from the
platform of theory to that of fact. Whenever boys and girls,
young men and young women, are set down to an examination
paper, founded on instruction which they have equally received,
it is found that the average of success in answering it is quite
as often in favour of the weaker as of the stronger sex; and,
indeed, that those of the ‘ more worthy gender ’ are often
ingloriously beaten. Then, as to the vital question of morals;
all the evidence adduced by Miss Jex Blake, and confirmed in
every respect by M. Hippeau's more recent investigations, goes
to show that if there is any danger it is guarded against and
prevented by the wisdom and prudence of the directors of
these establishments, who, as M. Hippeau remarks, are not
so blind as not to see abuses if they existed, and not so
destitute of moral principle themselves as to tolerate them
if they saw them. These gentlemen are unanimous in de
claring that the evils hinted at exist in surmise only and
not in reality.
*
To our mind the most conclusive evidence of
all is the continued and ever-increasing prosperity of the largest
of these institutions—the Oberlin College, in Ohio—during
a period of nearly forty years.fi It would seem quite impossible
* M. Hippeau learned that in the course of the five years ending 1868,
only one girl out of the 200 or 300 of the higher classes was expelled at
Oberlin, and that was for an offence against order rather than morals.
He further attests that there is no town in the United States the streets
of which are, night and day, so quiet and undisturbed as those of Oberlin.
fi The number of students of both sexes (rather more than half of whom
ar© females) which, when Miss Jex Blake visited Oberlin in 1865, was
SOI, had increased in 1868, when M. Hippeau was there, to 1,258.
�16
Oberlin College.
in the nature of things that the parents and guardians of
1,300 pupils (the present number)—persons whose moral and
religious characters are quite as respectable as those of t^.
corresponding classes amongst ourselves—would send their
children to an institution against which any serious moral
charge could be brought. We assume, therefore, that no
serious moral charge can be brought against these mixed com
munities, though we dare say that a considerable amount of
folly and frivolity might be detected without a very close
inspection. Even on this point, however, the evidence is very
strong that the pupils in general are remarkably distinguished
by the earnestness and zeal with which they pursue their studies.
The Oberlin College, to which we have just referred, may
be taken as a type of those intended for the instruction of both
sexes. Its modest commencement in 1833—under the patriotic
impulse of the Rev. John Shepherd, a Presbyterian minister,
and his friend, Mr. Stewart, who had been a missionary among
the Cherokee Indians—in the midst of a clearing gained from
a dense forest of North Ohio, gave little promise, in the thirty
pupils established in log huts run up to meet the emergency,
of the seven large school buildings, representing a capital of
£32,000, the twenty professors (with numerous assistant-teachers)
directing six distinct courses of study, the 1,300 pupils of both
*
sexes, and the town of 5,000 inhabitants which now compose
the ensemble of Oberlin. When the college was first opened,
‘ the Indians’ hunting-path,’ we are told, ‘ still traversed the
‘ forest, and the howl of the wolf was heard at night,’ and for
more than two years ‘the devious tracks through the forest were
‘ often impassable to carriages.’ The design of the founders
was to establish ‘ a school, open to both sexes—preparatory,
‘ teachers’, collegiate, and theological—furnishing a substantial
‘ education at the lowest possible rates,’ and combining manual
labour with mental study. The idea thus sketched out has
throughout preserved its original features, though the last
condition, involving handicraft work of some sort for four hours
daily, is no longer obligatory. It still, however, exists for
those who may choose to avail themselves of it. The bulk of
the students at Oberlin are children of parents to whom economy
is an important object, and in order to reduce the expenses
of education to a minimum, and consequently to offer its
advantages at the lowest possible rate, rigid frugality reigns
* ‘ Coloured students, varying widely as to hue, form about a third of
‘ the whole number, and I suppose there is hardly any community in
‘ America where the coloured and white races meet on so real and genuin®
‘ a footing of equality as at Oberlin.’—Miss Jex Blake, p. 17.
�The Higher Education of the United States.
17
throughout the whole establishment. Hence the professors’
salaries even are ‘ meagre ’ (Miss Jex Blake’s expression), and
the arrangements generally of buildings and appliances, &c.,
exhibit ‘ an utter absence of all the appearances and pretensions
of wealth.’ The education given under such circumstances is
perhaps not of the highest order of excellence, nor are the
*
graces cultivated to an undue extent. Miss Jex Blake (who
spent ten days at Oberlin, and employed them well) speaks of
the ‘ almost absolute deficiency of polish of manner ’ which
prevailed. She was especially surprised at ‘ the incessant spitting
‘ that went on during class hours, as well as at all other times.’
It is to be devoutly hoped that the influence of the softer sex
may in time prevail so far as to repress entirely this distinctly
masculine accomplishment of too many native Americans. Our
lady reporter was not less amazed to see ‘ young men (at their
‘ classes) with their heels poised on the back of the next seat,
* about on a level with their heads, or their legs stretched out on
* the seat beside them, while an examination was going on in
‘ perhaps quite abstruse branches of study, which are usually in
‘ our minds associated with a very considerable degree of
‘ culture.’ These features are not pleasing in themselves, and
are less so when we consider that a large proportion of the
young men under instruction at Oberlin are destined to become
masters of the primary schools, and therefore models of manners
to their pupils. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, however,
there can be no doubt that very much good work is done at
Oberlin. An earnest love of learning pervades the classes, in
most of which young men and women sit together (though at
different benches), and the general result is eminently satisfactory.
It should be remarked that it is the educational life only which
is common to both sexes—the social life, its boarding and
lodging, being completely separate, with the single exception
that the midday repast is pleasantly shared in common, without
any restriction upon the intercourse between the young men
and women, who meet as members of the same family. The
pupils of different sexes are forbidden, Miss Jex Blake assures
us, to walk to and from the classes together, a regulation
‘ which,’ she adds, ‘seemed to be well obeyed;’ but M. Hippeau,
whose rose-coloured glasses may have betrayed him, speaks of
their ‘walking and riding together within certain prescribed
limits,’ and even of the young men ‘ having the privilege of
* ‘It is only right to say that we had previously heard some accusations
‘ against Oberlin for want of thoroughness in study, and the recitations at
‘ which we were present hardly convinced us of the injustice of the
‘ charge.’—Miss Jex Blake, p. 22.
�18
‘ Religious Exercises ’ at Oberlin.
* admission to the house occupied by the young ladies at certain
‘ hours, after tea, for instance, until seven or eight o'clock in
‘ the evening.’ We evidently want further information on
some of these points. Into the details of studies, text-books,
&c., we cannot enter, but our description of Oberlin would be
incomplete without some reference to one very characteristic
feature. The institution was founded, in the first instance,
on a thoroughly religious basis. It was to be surrounded by
‘ a Christian community, united in the faith of the Gospel,’ and
a covenant of ‘ consecration to the work ’ was framed, binding
its subscribers to a ‘common purpose of glorifying God in doing
good to men.’ The spirit of this Puritan constitution is still
strictly preserved. The ‘ religious exercises’ are very frequent;
‘ morning prayer in the families, and evening prayer in the
‘ chapel, forming but a small part of them. There were in‘ numerable “ Sabbath-schools ” and prayer-meetings announced
‘ from the pulpit on Sunday, and during the week prayer‘ meetings and lectures seemed of daily occurrence ’ (Miss Jex
Blake). To such an extent are ‘religious exercises’ carried,
that every separate lesson begins with either a hymn or a
prayer. Miss Jex Blake confesses that she was more struck
than edified when present at a lesson on physiology, which was
preceded by the singing of ‘ All hail the power of Jesu’s
name,’ &c., and followed instantly ‘as the last word of the
* verse died out,’ by the voice of the lecturer briskly demanding
‘ What did I say were the physical functions ? ’ Upon the
religious element, which is thus seen to pervade the spirit of
Oberlin, and which is further manifested in the strongly
expressed desire for ‘ revivals ’ as a means for intensifying
it, we do not venture, in the absence of more definite infor
mation, to pronounce a judgment. We simply echo Miss Jex
Blake’s opinion, that unless very carefully watched over and
guided, it must tend to produce an unhealthy tone of cha
racter both as regards religion and morals. Nor is it irrelevant
to the subject to add that there appears throughout the entire
community an indisposition to physical recreation. There
is no suitable provision made for it, and no gymnasium exists
for either sex. ‘ During our ten days’ stay, we saw no sign
‘ whatever of athletic sports or exercises, unless indeed, some of
* the students belonged to a company of firemen recently
‘ established, who exercised in front of our windows. The
* utmost physical recreation seemed to consist in a country
‘ walk, and I doubt if even this was common, though a large
‘ number of the students had just returned from the disbanded
‘ army. This absence of desire for physical sports seems more
�The Higher Education of the United States.
19
‘ or less common throughout America3 (Miss Jex Blake). This
lack of a proper corrective, both to the effects of the very
earnest spirit of study that prevails at Oberlin, and the
tendency to morbid excitement which we have referred to,
is surely very serious, and ought to be supplied by the autho
rities, at whatever cost. It is, perhaps, both cause and effect
of the phenomena we have pointed out.
Leaving Oberlin, with its economical arrangements and
somewhat rough machinery, we next consider one of the largest
ladies’ boarding-schools in the world, the Vassar College, at
Poughkeepsie, on the Hudson, which, with its palatial facade
of nearly eight hundred feet, pleasure-grounds of nearly two
hundred acres, library of seven thousand volumes, art gal
lery, music-room, laboratories, astronomical observatory (with
first-rate instruments), natural history museum, calisthenium
(containing a riding-school one hundred feet long, and a
gymnasium seventy feet long), bowling-alley for in-door
exercises, lake for boating in summer and skating in winter,
forms, it must be acknowledged, an institution of a truly
remarkable character. M. Hippeau, indeed, declares that
there is no place of instruction in the world equal in ‘mag
nificence’ to this college for young girls. It was founded
some seven years ago at the expense of Mr. Vassar, an opulent
brewer of Poughkeepsie, with a view to accomplish for young
women what colleges of the first class accomplish for young
men—that is, to furnish them the means of a thorough, wellproportioned, and liberal education, adapted to their wants in
life. Mr. Vassar gave during his lifetime (he died two years
ago) about £100,000 towards the accomplishment of this object,
and left at his death £30,000 more, to form. (1) a lecture fund ;
(2) a library, art, and cabinet fund ; and (3) an auxiliary fund;
the last for aiding students of ‘ superior mind and sound scholar
ship’ to enjoy the advantages of the place at a reduced rate.
The arrangements are adapted to receive 400 young ladies,
each of whom pays about £80 a year, exclusive of text
books, stationery, and music and riding lessons. The total
expense seems to be about £100, and there were 382 girls (every
five of whom have a common sitting-room) in the school when
the last yearly report was issued. It will be seen that, con
sidering the value of the capitalized income, and the (for
America) large sum paid by each pupil, there is no lack of
funds, and hence the noble scale on which the whole of the
educational machinery is framed. A candidate for admission
must be at least fifteen years of age, and must submit to examina
tion in arithmetic, English grammar, modern geography, and
�20
Vassar College for Young Ladies.
the history of the United States, so strict ‘ that further lessons
‘ in these subjects will not be needed, no provision being made
‘ for such instruction in the college.’ The programme of studies
for the four years’ course is large—even as some competent
European observers think, too large—but this ambitious fault is
one which generally characterizes the educational efforts of the
United States, and which only experience will correct. It will
in time be found out that ‘ Multum non multa,’ and ‘ Qui trop
embrasse mal etreint,’ are cardinal principles in the teaching of
the young. The plan of ‘ bifurcation’ allows each pupil to
choose between (1) the Classical course; and (2) the Scientific
and Modern Language course; and there is every reason to
believe that the instruction, received under the advantages of
first-rate professors and costly machinery of every kind, is of a
*
very superior order. W e are glad to see that the prospectus of
studies especially insists on the laying of a good foundation.
The first year, called the ‘freshman (!) year,’ is devoted to
mental discipline and solid attainments, not to specious advance
ment.
‘ Great importance is attached to this early part of the course, as
preparatory to what follows. It is a cardinal point in the plan to
teach nothing in a mere compendious and superficial manner ; and all
experience shows that it is a sad waste of time to set young girls of
fifteen or sixteen years of age, without any proper intellectual pre
paration, at (sic) the studies which belong to the junior and senior
years (that is, the third and fourth years) of the college course.’
Such is a brief account of the leading features of an institution
which M. Hippeau, after examining schools of all kinds through
out the United States, pronounced to be in many respects the
most remarkable of them all.
The colleges of America are very numerous, and present
every variety of type. They are mostly first called info being
by the noble generosity of private individuals, and afterwards
maintained by fees. A college, in respect to its curriculum of
studies, is generally an advanced high school, but having no
organic connection with the national system. There are said to
be in all the States together about 290 of these institutions,
with about 3,000 teachers, giving instruction to between 70,000
and 80,000 pupils. The libraries attached to the colleges contain
in all about 1,800,000 volumes. The title of ‘university,’ which
* There are eight professors and about thirty teachers on the staff,
besides Dr. Raymond, the president, and Miss Lyman, the lady principal.
The professor of astronomy is a lady (Miss Mitchell), as is also the resi
dent physician (Miss Alida Avery). The teachers of Greek, Latin, and
mathematics are ladies.
�The Higher Education of the United States.
21
is given to a few of them, appears merely to indicate an institution
in which the course of instruction is larger and more complete.
Many of these colleges are founded on a decidedly denominational
basis, and are intended for the special instruction, often mainly
theological, of various sects of Christians. This is particularly
the case with some of those which bear the distinctive name of
‘ Academies,’ which are governed generally by committees of men
holding strict religious opinions, and are selected by parents of
the same belief with the view of bringing up their children in
their own faith. The colleges and universities are generally
well attended. The University of Michigan has 1,500 pupils ;
Madison (Wisconsin), 775 ; St. Louis, 618 ; Cambridge (Harvard
College), 479; Yale, 505 ; Lexington, 650; Oberlin, 1,200;
Cornell, 425 ; St. Francis Xavier (Roman Catholic), 568.
Harvard and Yale College and Universities stand at the head
of all these institutions, though they are not the most nume
rously attended. The students are, however, generally of a
higher class, and the professors of a more distinguished literary
and scientific position, than those of the other colleges, while
the means and appliances of instruction are ample and sufficient.
Yale, especially, has, within the last seven or eight years, been
aided in a princely style by high-spirited, wealthy men, who
seem to take a pride in casting off their abundance into the
treasury of the educational fund. No less than <£180,000 has
been thus bestowed on Yale College from 1860 to 1868.
Amongst the donors, George Peabody’s name appears for
*
£30,000, and Joseph Sheffield’s for £34,000. It is extra
ordinary that amongst the fabulously wealthy noblemen and
merchant princes of England so very few similar examples are
to be found, f In America they swarm, as the history of nearly
every one of its grand educational institutions attests. It is not
necessary to enter into minute particulars with regard to any of
these colleges or universities. The problem being given how to
provide for the superior instruction of say from 300 to 700
students in a country where there is so little control over free
action, and where the initiative is usually taken not by the
State but by private individuals, we can readily believe that it is
frequently solved but indifferently—that the professors are not all
of a high order, nor the degrees which every college confers much
worth having. Indeed, the very idea of more than 300 centres of
* Mr. Peabody also gave £34,000 towards the Geological Museum at
Harvard.
t Mr. Whitworth’s recent appropriation of £100,000 to Scientific
Scholarships claims, however, to be conspicuously recorded as a noble
exception.
�22
University of Michigan.
learning sending forth as many guarantees of attainments, each
of course estimated on a different scale, seems, on the face of it,
absurd. To be a graduate of a college means, therefore, next to
nothing, and, generally, American degrees have not yet become
a power in the world of letters. They are often, too, most unac
countably flung at the heads of foreigners under the designation
of ‘ honoraryand there are at this moment English dissenting
* doctors ’ not ashamed to flaunt in the face of the world titles
thus, we might almost say surreptitiously, gained. The system
certainly reached the acme of absurdity when the College and
University of Waterville (a place we cannot find in any common
gazetteer) made a worthy Baptist minister—whom, probably,
not a single member of its faculty had ever seen—a ‘ Doctor of
Divinity.’ It is not only in literary style, as we showed before,
but in educational style also, that the Americans have still to
attain to simplicity. There is too much show, too much fuss, too
much ambition, too much pretension—in short, too much licence.
The common schools are suffering, as we have already said,
from the want of authoritative inspection, and the colleges for
want of a limited number of examining boards, which alone
should have the power of conferring degrees. Were some such
arrangement carried out on the pattern of our own University
of London, an academical degree in America would have a
definite and well-understood value, which at present it certainly
has not.
Among the numerous schemes for carrying out the funda
mental idea of a college or university (convertible terms, as
we have shown) in America, those of Michigan and Ithaca (the
Cornell) present some striking peculiarities. The former, with
its 1,500 students, is noticeable for its extensive range of studies,
and for the renunciation of all prizes and external distinctions
as incentives to exertion. Its curriculum embraces almost all
knowledge ; and it is evident, from all the evidence that
can be gained respecting it, that a very earnest spirit of work
prevails equally amongst teachers and taught. Its two great
divisions—the literary and scientific—are so arranged that
neither wholly excludes the other. It is justly conceived that
the humanizing influences of classical studies cannot be ex
cluded from the mental discipline which is necessary for a
complete education; while, on the other hand, it is seen that
to ignore in a country like America—teeming with practical
intelligence, and aiming at the subjugation of the powers of
nature to the daily service of man—the arts and sciences, which
directly minister to that conquest, would be not only absurd in
theory but impracticable in fact. The literary course, therefore,
�The Higher Education of the United States.
23
embraces a certain proportion of science and the scientific,
some initiation into the classical programme. As to the renunciation of prize-giving, the President, Mr. Haven, lately ex
pressed himself as follows :—
1 Young people,’ he said, 1 ought to learn early in life to perform
their duties without requiring us to appeal to their desire to obtain
first places, prizes, medals, or any other external reward of merit. It
is doubtful whether measures of this kind really elevate study, while
it is' certain that they engender discontent and envy—hatred, even—
and tend, moreover, to diminish proper self-respect in those who are
influenced by motives so ignoble. Experience,’ he adds, ‘ has proved to
the professors of our university, many of whom have been attached
to establishments in which the contrary method is pursued, that our
system is in no respect unfavourable to the efficiency of study, and
that it is incomparably superior to the other by the moral influence
which it exercises over the pupils.’
The remarkable popularity and success of the Michigan
University may also be regarded as a sufficient answer to
objections on this score. As a specimen of the style in which
educational apparatus is provided at Michigan, it may be men
tioned that the observatory is fitted up with instruments by the
first makers of Europe and America, with all the most modern
appliances for their use. The meridian circle is described as
magnificent, and is, indeed, the largest yet made, and the
refracting telescope has an objective lens of thirteen inches
diameter; so that, as M. Hippeau remarks, ‘We see here for
‘ the service of a university establishment in a small town of the
‘ United States, one of the most powerful and complete astrono‘ mical apparatuses to be found in the world.’ The art instruction
carried on at Michigan is also aided and stimulated by galleries
so richly provided with statues, busts, vases, medallions, and
copies of famous paintings, that M. Hippeau declares that
none of the colleges of Erance can show anything comparable
to them.
A distinctive feature worth mentioning is seen in the
curriculum of Lafayette College, at Easton, in Pennsylvania.
This is not one of the largest institutions of the kind, but it is
eminently distinguished by the intelligence and zeal which
pervade its arrangements (superintended by a first-rate Presi
dent, the Rev. W. C. Cattell, D.D.), and make themselves felt
in the success of the teaching. For some years past, under
the able direction of Professor March, the English language has
been made a prominent feature in the programme. The
professor treats the English author chosen for study—Milton,
for instance—as a competent classical teacher does Homer
�24
Normal Colleges.
or Virgil. The text is minutely analyzed, the mythological,
historical, and metaphysical allusions carefully investigated
and appreciated, parallel passages from English authors of
different periods adduced, and the rules of composition in
poetry or prose illustrated. As to the language itself, inde
pendently of the thought conveyed by it, investigations are
conducted into the origin, value, and chronological history of
the words, their formation, &c.; and in short, into everything
which belongs to the domain of comparative philology.
Nowhere else is the subject treated with equal competence and
*
success.
The Normal Colleges,which are numerous in the United States,
though owing their origin very generally to private munificence,
are, as being connected with the common school system, aided
by subscriptions from the State. They are mainly intended to
train teachers for the common schools, and the curriculum is
therefore somewhat limited in comparison with that of some
of the other colleges; but many of them are highly dis
tinguished by the earnest intelligence which permeates the
entire body, both of teachers and pupils; and what they attempt
and profess, they seem to do remarkably well. Miss Jex Blake
gives a most interesting account of that which she visited at
Salem, Massachusetts. She expresses her admiration in terms
similar to those in which Bishop Fraser praises the Boston
High School. She says, her ‘one regret was, that she could
‘ not transplant the whole affair bodily to England, that other
‘ teachers might share her pleasure in seeing any school so
* thoroughly well worked as this was by its excellent head
* master and a first-rate staff of most earnest lady teachers,
‘ whose actual erudition was almost overwhelming.’ ‘ Indeed,’
she adds, ‘ the amount of sheer learning acquired by really
* good teachers in America, has often surprised me.’ The
Salem school is for young women only, and from the account
given of its plans, it can hardly fail to turn out first-rate
teachers. The methods pursued appear to be characterized by
rare ingenuity and intelligence, while the tone and spirit of
the place is just that which one would wish to see repeated
in the schools where these young pupils are themselves to become
teachers. There seems every reason to believe that what in
the prospectus of the school is described as its ‘ aims,’ are really
attained. ‘From the beginning to the end of the course,
* Mr. March’s interesting “ Method of Philological Study of the English
Language ” (New York, 1865), is well worth the attention of teachers.
He has just published an “Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” which appears to be
far superior to any other that has yet appeared.
�The Higher Education of the United States.
25
‘ all studies are conducted with special reference to the best
‘ ways of teaching them. Recitation of English lessons alone,
‘ however excellent, are not satisfactory, unless every pupil
‘ is able to teach others that which she has herself learned.
‘ The great object of the school is to make the pupils investi* gate, think, and speak for themselves; to make the individual
‘ self-reliant and ready to meet whatever difficulties may
‘ arise.’ Here too, as in the Chicago University, in Dart
mouth- College, and others, extrinsic rewards of learning are
discountenanced. ‘ It is not deemed necessary to awaken a
‘ feeling of emulation in order to induce the scholars to perform
‘ their duties faithfully. The ranking of scholars according
‘ to their comparative success in studies is not here allowed.
‘ Faithful attention to duty is encouraged for its own sake, not
‘ for the purpose of obtaining certain marks of credit.’ These
are the words of the prospectus, and here is Miss Jex Blake’s
testimony, showing that the words are interpreted by deeds.
‘ Indeed, the whole spirit of the school seemed most admirable,
‘ whether as regarded the untiring zeal and energy of all
‘ the teachers—who were for ever doing work beyond what was
‘ required of them—whose one aim -seemed to be true and
‘ genuine success at any cost; or the ready industry and unflag‘ ging interest of the pupils—who co-operated so heartily with
‘ the teachers for their own progress ; or the general spirit of
‘ sympathy and natural goodwill that reigned over all. In the
‘ course of my many visits, I never once saw idleness or de‘liberate carelessness in a pupil, nor superficiality or impatience
‘ in a teacher; still less any appearance of jealousy or ill-will
‘ anywhere, and not a black look among the whole community/
Such a testimony from so competent an observer settles the
question in our mind (though we had no doubt before) of
the value of training for the teacher. It will be a bright
day for education amongst us when hundreds of such schools
shall be established in England, where every one ‘ who chooses
to think that he has a gift for teaching ’ is at perfect liberty
— without any knowledge whatever, and without the least
preparatory training—to perform any number of murderous
experiments, and for any length of time, upon the bodies, minds,
and souls of the wretched little victims whom evil fate throws
into his hands. The educational furore which is beginning
to take possession of the English public mind will, we venture
to say, avail comparatively little until the paramount want
of all—that of trained teachers—is felt and supplied. The
teaching of the teacher is the most vital question of the day;
and the solution of it concerns the whole community, from
�26
Scientific Schools and Institutes.
the patricians of Eton down to the urchins of the ragged
*
school.
If England is about the worst educated country in
Europe, it is not merely because so many children are not
taught at all, but because so many of our teachers know
nothing about the art of teaching. It is with them that our
efforts to improve English education ought rightfully to begin.
It is not surprising that with so practical a people as
the Americans, schools expressly founded to give instruction in
technical science, as well as Agricultural Colleges, should be
greatly encouraged. The progress that has been made in
this respect is truly surprising. Only the other day, Mr.
Siljestrom—whose report on American education still remains
by far the most thoughtful and philosophical of all that have
been published on the subject—expressed his surprise that
he found scarcely any institutions dedicated to the teaching
of the principles of science. He looked in vain for those
agricultural and technological colleges, which, as he deemed,
so well suited the genius of the people. At this moment he
would find thirty such institutions of the first class, richly
endowed with funds, and establishing themselves in the hearts
of the people by the intelligence and comprehensiveness of
spirit which conceived them and which maintains them in
efficient action. Among them the Sheffield Institute and the
Lawrence Scientific School, in connection respectively with Yale,
and Harvard Colleges, the Boston Technological School, the
School of Mines at Calombia College, the Agricultural Schools of
Amherst and Pennsylvania, have a deservedly high reputation.
The Technological Institute of Boston is one of the fruits
of the combination of private and State endowments, to which
*
we have so often referred. Its object is to form engineers, che
mists, builders, and architects. The four years’ course of instruc
tion embraces for the first two years (in which the studies are
common to all the students), algebra, geometry, descriptive
geometry, free-hand drawing, elements of mechanics, chemistry
with manipulations, descriptive astronomy, carpentering, the
English language and literature, French and German. The third
and fourth years are devoted to special instruction adapted to the
professions chosen by the students. The subjects are mechanical
engineering, civil engineering and topography, practical che
* “In no department of human activity is there such a pretentious
display of power, with such a beggarly account of results” (as in English
teaching).—Professor Blackie, of Edinburgh.
* Among the donors are Dr. Walker, £40,000; Mr. Huntingdon,
£10,000; Mr. Thayer, £5,000; Mr. Mason, £4,000; Mr. Hayward,
£4,000, &c.
�The Higher Education of the United States.
27
mistry, mining engineering, architecture, and a general course
of science and literature. To carry out these studies there
are vast laboratories for chemical, physical, and metallurgical
experiments, as well as schools devoted to practical car
pentering, levelling, geoiesy, and nautical astronomy. This
instruction is supplemented by visits to factories, mines, mills,
&c., so that the student goes forth to his business in life well
equipped with all that is necessary for success in it.
In the Agricultural Colleges the course pursued is very
similar. General education in literature and science precedes
the special business of the college, for teaching which, the
arrangements, made on a grand scale in the best of these
institutions, furnish every aid that is necessary. Practical
chemistry, animal and vegetable physiology and zoology, form
parts of the course, as well as experiments in the best methods
of cropping, manuring, planting, &c«
The question of the proportions in which the literary and
scientific elements should combine to form the cultivated man
is one of the highest interest to Englishmen as well as
Americans. It is under discussion in England, but it is
solving by action in America. The old traditions which are
still reverenced here are being superseded by antagonistic
movements there. The utilitarian spirit, which is liberally inter
preted amongst us, is more strictly interpreted amongst the
Americans. We have never in England tried the experiment
of training the mind on a scientific basis; our transatlantic
cousins are trying it for us. The results are, doubtless, interest
ing and striking ; but at present they must be considered as
inconclusive. Our limits, however, forbid our entering either
into a full discussion of the theory or a description of the results.
We may perhaps return, on some future occasion, to the subject,
contenting ourselves for the present with the remark that the
attempt to learn something of every science—an attempt which
has a strange fascination for Americans—is generally found to
end in failure. The average capacity of the human mind may
be looked upon as a ‘constant quantity,’ which you do not
permanently increase by inciting it to unwonted and often dis
tracting effort, any more than you increase the digestive powers
by unlimited supplies of food. It is still ordained that into the
kingdom of knowledge, as into the kingdom of heaven, we must
enter as ‘ little children; ’ nor can we conceive of a ‘ common
‘ measure ’ between the progress of a nation’s knowledge and
that of an individual, for whom, even were the sciences ten times
as numerous as they are, it will ever be necessary to begin his
Wn career with ABC.
We may, it is true, furnish
�28
The Cornell University.
an opportunity for learning everything; but then everything
cannot be learned. Non omnes omnia possumus. , Even to
know this requires something beyond mere knowledge ; and
should the provision of unlimited means of knowing lead only to
improved methods of cramming, the results will not be satis
factory. Cramming, we hold to be the unlawful attempt to
appropriate other people's work—to gain the results of labour
without the labour itself. The flowers thus plucked and stuck
into the ground may make a gaudy show, but they begin to
wither away at once, for they are severed from the root which
nourished and matured them. We do not say that the
American plans for superior education lead to cramming; we
merely point out an obvious cause of danger.
But we must give as complete an account as we can in a small
space of the last wonderful birth of the American earnest zeal
and lofty conception of the idea of a University. Nowhere
is this idea; realised as it is at the Cornell University at
Ithaca (N.Y.), an institution in which, in conformity with the
founder’s own conception, ‘ any person can find instruction in
‘ any study.’ Mr. Ezra Cornell, a private citizen of New York
State, adding from his own resources £200,000 to the Central
Government endowment—which is allotted to each State for the
special purpose of founding colleges of Agriculture and Me
chanical Arts—has achieved no ordinary fame in having his
name for ever associated with an institution which is, in many
respects, without a rival in the whole world. Every study that
has, in any age, been considered as forming a part either of the
training of the mind or of the practical exercise of its faculties,
finds here a representative department. There is, to use the
words of the prospectus, £ no fetichism in regard to any single
course of study’—all stand on the same footing; all have an
equal chance afforded them. The six main divisions are—(1)
Agriculture; (2) the Mechanic Arts; (3) Civil Engineering ;
(4) Military Engineering and Tactics ; (5) Mining and Prac
tical Geology ; (6) History, Social and Political Science. These
again are subdivided into forty-six special departments, each with
its separate professor and its distinct course of study. Then,
besides the professional staff which is responsible for the daily
teaching of the various classes, there is the novel feature of a
virtual affiliation of all the highest colleges of the United States
with this, by engaging their most eminent professors to take part
in the instruction given in the Cornell. These are attached
to the professional staff under the name of non-resident pro
fessors. The valuable services of Agassiz, Gilman, Dwight,
Lowell, Dana, Noah Porter, &c., are thus secured to the insti-
�The Higher Education of the United States.
29
tution. These gentlemen give courses of from twelve to twenty
lectures yearly, which are open without charge to the public of
Ithaca, as well as to all the students. It is needless to add that
all the material educational machinery—laboratory, library,
museum, gymnasia, observatory, &c.—is on a scale corresponding
with the fundamental idea. Everything is of the best modern
type—excellence, not cost, being the point of consideration.
There are a few exceptional points of interest in the idea and
the machinery of this university, which deserve further illustra
tion. First we note, what we have referred to already, the
extraordinary range of the curriculum, which simply compre
hends all human knowledge, theoretical and practical. In
consistency with this idea, the educational machinery embraces
the workshop and farmyard equally with the laboratory, the
museum, and the professor’s class-room, and, in short, arrange
ments are here made for teaching everything that anybody
can desire to learn. Everybody, moreover, who goes to Ithaca
has ‘ university liberty (a singular expression) in the choice of
studies;’ in other words, there is no prescribed course. The
constructors of the programme urge the great advantage of thus
allowing the student to choose the studies that he likes, inas
much as ‘ discipline {i. e., mental discipline) comes by studies
which are loved, not by studies which are loathed.’ We very
much question, however, the correctness of the principle thus
laid down, if it is to be strictly interpreted. It may be wise,
on the whole, to allow, under the circumstances, an un
restricted libertas discendi, but certainly not, as far as our
judgment goes, for the reason given. The very idea of mental
discipline seems to us to involve self-denial, restraint, patient
toil, endurance, and is, in fact, the fruit of the experience
gained by contending, by agonizing, as it were, with opposing
forces. Such discipline is surely not gained as a matter of
course, by doing merely the things we like and eschewing
those that we dislike, but mainly by the contrary course of
action. Few men probably have ever gained eminent rank in
arts, letters, or public life, whose position was not greatly
due to the fact of their being made by circumstances to do
things they did not like. Their conquest over difficulties, and
therefore over themselves, made them what they are. We do
not wish, however, in making these remarks, to seem captious,
but we do wish emphatically to demur to the principle laid down,
as the reason of a very important regulation. Experience will
at length decide the question at issue; but if in the meantime
it should be found that the studies which are easy attract much
of the love, and those which are difficult much of the loathing,
�30
Self-government of the Cornell University.
that result will only show, what was known before, that
American students are, after all, very much like those of other
countries.
The framing and the execution of the laws necessary
for preserving order are, for the most part, devolved on the
pupils themselves. After much deliberation, the authorities
decided to adopt 4 neither a military, nor the ordinary collegiate
discipline/ but the 4 free university system of Continental
Europe, where comparatively little is done by college police,
and much is left to the students themselves.’ ‘ In this system/
they remark, 4 the university is regarded neither as an asylum
4 nor a reform school. Much is trusted to the manliness of the
* students. The attempt is to teach the students to govern them4 selves, and to cultivate acquaintance and confidence between
4 Faculty and students.’ The author of ‘ Tom Brown/ in his inte
resting article in the July number of Macmillan, gives evidence
that the plan thus adopted at the foundation of the university
has proved efficient. In an institution to which the great bulk
of the students resort for the purpose of real study, and in which
disorder would defeat the very object in view, it is easy to see
that arrangements are possible, which, in our older universities
—which are for the most part attended by those who intend to
study as little as possible, and generally carry out their inten
tion—would be impracticable ; but we quite agree in spirit with
the author just quoted, in the wish that some stern authoritative
voice were appointed to thunder in the ears of hundreds of the
young men who are carrying on at Cambridge and Oxford the
farce of 4 study/ the old command—4 aut discite aut discedite.’
The expulsion of the drones from the hive would be a great gain
for English education.
In order to promote what is certainly a very desirable
object, a more free and sympathetic intercourse between pro
fessors and students, it is recommended 4 that additions be made
to professors’ salaries, expressly as an indemnity or provision/
to meet such expenses as might be involved, and arranging for
social meetings between the parties concerned. 4 The same prin4 ciple which has led wise Governments to make extra allowances
4 to ambassadors, for the express purpose of keeping up genial
4 social relations with the people among whom they are sent, is
4 the basis of the experiment now suggested.’ We are not
informed what success has attended this novel experiment.
Among the regulations, there is one curiously illustrative of
the business quality which prevails in all American arrangements.
It is,4 that the university will tolerate no feuds in the Faculty ;’
and it is founded on the fact 4 that the odium theologicum seems
�The Higher Education of the United States.
31
‘ now outdone by hates between scientific cliques and dogmas.’
The remedy is sharp and decisive: it is ordered that ‘ in case
‘ feuds and quarrels arise, every professor concerned be at once
‘ requested to resign, unless the disturbing person can be identi‘ fied beyond a reasonable doubt,’ and ‘ that all concerned be
replaced by others who can work together.’ ‘ Better,’ it is
added, ‘to have science taught less brilliantly than to have it
‘ rendered contemptible.’
Another of the notable features of this unique university is
the encouragement (not, however, the compulsory obligation) of
daily manual labour on the part of the students, with a view
both to improving their bodily health, and enabling those whom
it may concern to obtain the means of pursuing their education
at Ithaca. It appears that about a fifth of the five or six
hundred students of the institution have availed themselves of
the option given them. The experiment is yet in its infancy,
and no positive judgment can as yet be formed of its ultimate
success. It will probably not become a permanent feature of
the university. The time must arrive when the labour now
beneficially employed in the establishment itself will no
longer be needed, and the directors have no intention of setting
up workshops in rivalry of the industries of the country.
The last feature to which we shall refer, is the treatment
of the religious question. It is characteristic of the country in
which the university is situated, and indicates the condition of
things to which—as we believe for the honour of ‘ pure and
undefiled religion ’—we are tending in England. So long as
religion, or what is called such, is so closely connected with
social station, wealth and respectability, that ‘ each seems
either ’—religion being respectability, and vice versa—it is
difficult to distinguish that which is ‘ pure and undefiled ’ from
that which is not. The discussion of the principle, however, is
no part of our programme, and we therefore append, without
further comment, the official regulation:—
‘ The Cornell University, as its highest aim, seeks to promote
Christian civilization. But it cannot be sectarian. Established by
a general Government which recognises no distinctions in creed, and
by a citizen who holds the same view, it would be false to its trust
were it to seek to promote any sect, or to exclude any. The State of
New York, in designating this institution as the recipient of the
bounty of the general Government, has also declared the same
doctrine. By the terms of the Charter, no trustee, professor, or
student can be accepted or rejected on account of any religious or
political opinions which he may or may not hold.’
But we must stay our hand, while we leave an abundance of
�32
The Religious Difficulty.
interesting material untouched. We have aimed at presenting
an idea, as complete as our limits permit, of the vast machinery
employed in conducting the higher education of America. The
features which it has in common with those of similar institu
tions in the Old World, we have not dwelt upon. They can
easily be imagined. Those, however, which are typical and
illustrative of the remarkable public spirit, energy, zeal, and
intelligence which characterize the people, we have endeavoured
fairly and candidly to display.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The higher education of the United States
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Payne, Joseph [1832-1907.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 32 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5683
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The higher education of the United States), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Education-United States
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b0f4d5b5b9a2a3cd600b46d689297a43.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JrKB8NxesMlg5ieGdTNyDs7K5f97MJF1locwS2q5kkz%7E1KW8C9d2CbvPI5J190YK9btPwXmaubup9qwiv%7EiSgDb7JluoQTI88oT5TW6TP3qSp68CuAXhO2Pkjw39NEMmWS7Nom2s3sbBmeGBheF1r0DLTiF7vt7wpFhIONKfO9%7EBEMxFNCgS0V99alltj3zGF6zNqs1yQ7nSM6QNlwcKTNatkgc3O5aL0SfLb1xd6RfNBFM-tgBYntorZakyNN3fmDBGjAxglJcylxEZY0n0Oijy1E-wMCvcCedG4-oMryw1jMDvkfquwhGzPBY21tWgP0i0DHctPa1Dw8zW8EVf3A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
11200ea062c08e571f2712e4643af829
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL
A QUESTION OF ETHICS
NEW EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED, WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO
THE COMING EDUCATION BILL
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON, M.A.
(Formerly M.P. for Leicester and a Member of the first School Boardfor London)
[issued for the
rationalist press association, limited]
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
��CONTENTS
-
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION
-
■
v
-
-
xv
THE BIBLE SPHINX............................................................... i
RELIGIOUS EQUALITY............................................................... 9
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
....
16
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
...
23
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
-
-
-
34
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
-
-
43
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
...
56
CONCLUSION..........................................................................62
INDEX-
77
��PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
In the arena of education the most significant event since the first issue
of this Essay has been the production and withdrawal of TMr. Birrell’s
Bill. I do not mention the Act of 1902, because it has appeared to me
significant of little but the illimitable evils occasioned by passionate
blunders in patriotism. It was the inevitable effect of a “ khaki
election.” But the Bill of 1906 was an attempt to correct, so far as
education was concerned, that mistake—with what results we know.
If, however, our belief in the continuity of progress be sound, it is incon
ceivable that the reactionary law of 1902 can remain much longer in
force. Such a notion would be as simple as that of the child who fancies
that an exceptionally long receding ripple indicates the turn of the
advancing tide. But if a new Education Bill is introduced, as we are
assured it will be, all highest interests demand that it shall not be drawn
on lines which will ensure its delivery into the hands of its sectarian foes.
In other words, no loophole must be left for associating the public
authority, whether imperial or local, with the teaching of dogmas that
divide us.
A nation which sets to its Government an impossible task ought not
to be captious in criticism of failure. Now the task appointed by a
reputed majority of English people to successive Ministers of Education
has been the establishment of religious equality in the schools, together
with security for “ simple Bible teaching.” And this latter phrase
practically means, as is abundantly proved in the following pages, the
ordinary Scriptural instruction common to the Sunday-schools of the
great evangelical sects—Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and all
Wcsleyans. But this common belief of those influential sects is, after
all, not the belief of the whole nation. For the Church of England,
through the voices of her most •zealous and self-sacrificing clergy and
most devout laity, denounces that common belief as not only insufficient,
but misleading. The Roman Catholics, as a matter of course, protest.
It is matter of common fame, to which I shall refer again, that a rapidly
The Educa
tion Bill of
1906.
A failure,
and the
reason why.
�vi
The prefer
ence of undenominationalism
fatal to
religious
equality.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
increasing number of Nonconformists themselves have surrendered most
important elements of that once common belief. And outside of all
these is a dim, uncounted, but formidable host, who utterly deny all
miraculous revelation, and who insist, as they have always done, but
more loudly than ever now, that their rejection of revelation does not in
the least invalidate their claim to full citizenship, including religious
equality.
What the reputed majority demand, then, amounts to this: that in a
nation notoriously divided as to forms1 of religious belief a delusive
attempt must be made to establish as “undenominational” one particular
form of belief that happens to be shared by certain great and influential
sects. Such a position reminds us of what is said of the Emperor Julian
by Mr. T. R. Glover in his Life and Letters in the Fourth Century: “A
zealot whose principle is the equality of all sects and the preference of
one stands in slippery places.” In our times we have to do, not with
an individual zealot, but with a congregate or multi-personal zealot,
constituted by an alliance of the great evangelical denominations. The
principle enunciated by Mr. Glover is, however, quite as applicable in
the twentieth century as in the fourth. And the story of the Education
Bill of 1906 cruelly exposes the fate of the modern zealot “whose
principle is the equality of all sects and the preference of one.”
Perhaps I may fairly claim that this painful and wasteful episode in the
struggle for national education is a glaring illustration of the main thesis of
the following pages. For that thesis, in few words, is simply this: that to
teach in the schools of the nation, and by authority of the nation, a
transcendental subject on which the nation is for the present irrecon
cilably divided in opinion is worse than impracticable. It is not only a
waste of time and money: it is a perennial source of strife, a deadly
injury to citizen education, a cause of hypocrisy, falsehood, and all the
forms of immorality inevitably propagated by these vices. Yet hardly
once in the course of the Parliamentary debates on that misbegotten
Bill was this essential issue fairly faced. With certain happy exceptions,
especially among the Labour Members, the prevalent assumption was
that we are all agreed on “simple Bible teaching,” though not one
champion of a lost cause attempted an articulate explanation of what
1 I say forms because one of my deepest convictions is that the division is super
ficial only. But the actual realities feebly represented by those forms were earnestly
taught in a strictly “ secular” school which I attended for six years of my boyhood.
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
vii
that teaching is. And nearly all ignored the patent fact that this effete
assumption has been long drummed out of existence by the discordant
sectarian bands who drowned by their noise all the more practical
educational issues at School Board elections. Nor has the abolition of
School Boards cured the mischief. For it has simply transferred the
battle of the Bible to municipal elections, and especially to the choice
of “ co-opted members ” on Education Committees.
But other signs of the times have portentously risen on the horizon ; Theology?’
and perhaps most significant among them is what is called “the New
Theology.” With that I have nothing whatever to do except to insist
that, however incorrectly the epithet “ new ” may be otherwise applied,
the movement is a novel and, I might even add, a startling illustration
of the main positions maintained in this Essay. For, instead of the
supposed unanimity of a reputed majority of the nation about the “simple
Bible teaching ” of which samples are given in the following pages, we
find even among the evangelical Nonconformists themselves an outbreak
of the most discordant opinions touching the origin, nature, infallibility,
and authority of the very Book whose exclusion from the schools, they
tell us, would be sacrilege. Now I am perfectly aware that such dis
cordance of opinion would be no sufficient objection to the inclusion of
the Bible as a “ classic ” in the school curriculum, always provided that
it could be treated as schoolmasters treat any other classic, and that
every teacher could be really freed from theological bondage. But, as
an old School Board hand and present member of a county education
committee, I know that these premises are at present simply impossible.
For the Bible is in the schools, not as a “ classic,” but as “ the word of
God.” Yet now the advocates of the New Theology, from their dis
tinguished leader the Rev. R. J. Campbell downwards, have practically
repudiated every intelligible sense in which the Book could be honestly
called the word of God.
I must dwell for a moment on this point, because, unfortunately,
the theological habits slowly formed during two millenniums impose on
good and honest men, I will not say a slippery, but certainly a subtle,
use of words which pleases the eye or ear, but leaves the reason
befogged. It is therefore necessary here to particularise the new forms
which the old problem of the Bible in school has assumed. For when
we are told that there is nothing in the new views held by so many
Nonconformists at all inconsistent with their advocacy of the old use of
�viii
Contrast of
the new
views with
‘ * simple
Bible
teaching."
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
the Bible as a class-book, it is surely needful to get a clear idea of those
new views, and also to remind ourselves of what the old use of the
Bible in school was and is. I will dismiss the latter first, because it is
only necessary to refer readers to the later pages of this book,1 which,
after six years, remain substantially, and indeed for the most pait
exactly, true of present practice.
In sum, the ancient and present usage amounts to this : That the
Bible is presented to the children as the very word of God, as “ God’s
letter to mankind,” and bearing everywhere the stamp of divine
authority, which it is wicked to doubt. But, of course, the time spirit is
too strong for uniform insistence on the old rigid literal interpretation.
Thus there is often an attempt on the part of the more intelligent
teachers in municipal schools to evade the difficulties of the Creation
story, the Fall, and the Tower of Babel, or perhaps of the Almighty’s
visit to Abraham’s tent, by feeble suggestions of “ allegory,” always with
the reservation that all is the “ word of God.” In this view of contem
porary Bible-teaching I am generally confirmed by Mr. Nevinson’s
recent most interesting letters to the Westminster Gazette on visits
which he paid to various elementary schools during the hour of religious
instruction. His remarks on the evident anxiety of Council school
teachers to avoid any suspicion of heresy were suggestive and painful.
Now let us note the contrast between the established usage in
public elementary schools—even those called “ undenominational ”—
and the ideas so rapidly spreading among Nonconformist supporters of
the Bible in school.23 To the “ New Theology,” as expounded by its
leader, the Bible has just as much authority as each individual mind
feels impelled to assign to it. But its claim to be “ the word of God ”
is gone. The first books of the Bible—so constantly prescribed by
Council “ syllabuses ” for the religious inspiration of infant minds—are
a collection of myths mainly of Babylonian origin. “ The Fall theory is
not only impossible in face of the findings of modern science; it is a real
hindrance to religion.”
The Incarnation, as understood by all recognised
1 See pp. 29 and following.
2 It is.only just to the Rev. R. J. Campbell to note that he at least is consistent,
and has joined the Secular Education I.eague. It is only what I should expect
of a man with a single eye to veracity.
3 Rev. R. J. Campbell, in The New Theology, p. 64. The italics are my own.
But the words are well worth emphasising in view of the constancy with which this
old myth is taught to young children as the starting-point of genuine religious
history.
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
ix
doctors of theology, whether Catholic or Protestant, is explained away.
Not that the divinity of Christ is denied. But it is regarded only as a
resplendent illustration of the divinity partly expressed, partly latent, in
every other man.1 It is true that, with expansive tolerance, Mr.
Campbell thinks “ even the Athanasian Creed is a magnificent piece of
work, if only the Churches would consent to understand it in terms of
the oldest theology of all”! The date and authority of this “oldest
theology ” are not given ; and it is not my business to conjecture the
author’s meaning. For my sole purpose in alluding to the book at all
is to show how far it shatters the persistent assumption that there is
such a thing as “simple Bible teaching” on which the dominant sects
are agreed. And the book proves my point, because it is written by the
most popular Nonconformist preacher of the day, occupying a sort of
episcopal pre-eminence in the central temple of Evangelical Noncon
formity, and because the book has attained a circulation rarely accorded
even to works of fiction.
Take up any syllabus23of religious instruction approved by local
Education Authorities, and note how impossible its prescription must
be to an honest teacher holding the “new theology.” For the greater
number of such documents—in fact, almost all—prescribe the story
of the Fall for the edification of the youngest children, together
with the narrative of the Deluge and the adventures of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, of which the mythical characters are clearly involved,
though not expressly stated, in the New Theology. Further, the New
Testament does not remain intact. For though Mr. Campbell is quite
willing that his adherents should believe the story of the Virgin-Birth
if they can, he is himself of opinion that it was “ unknown to the
primitive Church that it is an unauthorised addition to the earliest
Gospels; and that the reference in Matthew i. 23 to the supposed
prophecy of such a portent in Isaiah vii. 14 is due to the Evangelist’s
ignorance of Hebrews Anyone who observes what a prominent place
the story of Bethlehem takes in municipal religion as taught in Council
schools can judge of the cruel position into which the New Theology
forces any of its adherents who happen to be undenominational school
1 The New Theology, chap. v.
2 The character of these syllabuses, in which th? Act of 1902 has caused no
change whatever, is indicated in Chapter IV»
3 New Theology, p. 98.
Syllabuses
of Bible
teaching.
�X
“Canye not
discern the
signs of this
time ?”
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
teachers. Are they to tell the children what they themselves in the
new light believe to be false, or are they to resign their places ?
I need not pursue the subject; or I might show that in regard to
such fundamental doctrines as the Trinity, the Atonement, Apostolic
authority, and the nature of the kingdom of God, followers of this new
and popular teaching must find it impossible without hypocrisy to work
up to the pattern set before them in the syllabuses adopted by the
various education authorities. What, then, is the hope of those who
still support such a system ? Do they really think in their heart of
hearts that the adherents of the New Theology are a few aberrant and
exceptional persons who are negligible in any great question of the
national conscience? But in the following pages evidence is given that
these ideas prevailed to a large extent among elementary teachers
before ever Mr. Campbell was heard of. Are their numbers likely to
be lessened now ? I will quote an authority for which I have a more
rational reverence than any have who think that religion can be served
by blindness to staring facts. For one feature of the character of
Jesus does, I think, shine clearly upon us through all the mists breathed
by imaginative affection; and that is his splendid veracity. It-was
shown, as all the Gospels tell us, in his treatment of the Sabbatarian
superstition in his day. It was shown in his exposure of Pharisaism at
the peril of his life. It was shown in his daring to cast aside the
asceticism of John the Baptist and to rejoice with the sons of men.
And it seems to me it was his sense of outraged veracity which gave a
tone of anger to his retort upon those who wanted a sign of what could
never come, while they were blind to the plain tokens of what was
coming. “ O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky. But
can ye not discern the signs of this time?”
It can scarcely be too often repeated that my argument does not
involve any judgment one way or the other on the theological points at
issue between the different schools of thought above noticed. My sole
object is to expose the hollowness of the pretence that the great
majority of the nation are substantially agreed about the Bible, and
that they all mean the same thing by “ simple Bible teaching.”
Whether the old theologians or the new are right is a question that
makes no difference to my argument. At any rate, they disagree.
They differ about the dates, authority, and historicity of Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and most
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
xi
of the other Old Testament books.
They are at variance about the
Fall, the meaning of Jewish sacrifices, the Messianic prophecies, the
Atonement, the divinity of Christ, the extent of the inspiration of St.
Paul, the historical value of the Gospels, and especially of “St. John’s.”
But whatever may be the amount of truth attained by any of the
contending parties, it is only one party that has the advantage of having
its opinions established and endowed in the schools; and that is the
rapidly lessening section which holds to the old beliefs common to
Nonconformity and Low Church in the year 1871, and then stereotyped
once for all by the “ Compromise ” of the Right Hon. W. H. Smith.
Yet another sign of the times is the awakening of many earnest
Churchmen to the fact that the establishment and endowment of
religion, at least in the schools, involves humiliating conditions such as
cancel the value both of privilege and money. Thus it was interesting
to read in an editorial article of the Church Times on June 14th, 1907,
the following endorsement of the practical conclusion which the
ensuing pages were written to enforce : “ It is clear that under the
conditions of religious disunion prevailing in our country the appro
priation of public money in payment for religious teaching is a mistake.
It would not be impossible to make an equitable provision for all
religions alike; but the difficulties are great, and the fanaticism of a
small minority can make them insuperable. The only reasonable
alternative is to leave the provision of religious teaching entirely to
voluntary effort.” This practical conclusion is, of course, reached by a
very different course of thought from that of the following essay. And
for “ the fanaticism of a small minority ” I would substitute “ the
common sense of most.” But the value of the omen is its suggestion
that the possessors of a living faith, as distinguished from mere
formalists, are beginning to see that they dishonour their faith by
allying it with injustice and falsehood. If this sentiment spreads, the
wrong will cease.1
1 It is curious to contrast the above High Church frank acknowledgment of
obvious justice with the eloquent plea for privileged Puritanism uttered by one of
the ablest and most practical statesmen of the day. At Pontypridd, on July 20th,
1907, as reported in the Manchester Guardian, the Right Hon. D. Lloyd-George
rightly denounced the system which has given the Church of England millions of
public money “for the purpose of conducting little missionary schools throughout the
country.” But in eulogising with well-justified patriotism “a race whose intelligence
had been cultivated and strengthened and developed by a century of Puritan
theology,” he perhaps naturally overlooked the fact that church people have just as
good a right to object to a system which gives public money to pay for “ missionary
One variety
of opinion
alone estab
lished and
endowed.
The position
of Church
men.
�xii
New Regu
lations for
Training
Colleges.
Inconsis
tency of
M inisters of
the Crown.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
Yet another sign of the times is to be found in the new “ Regula
tions for the Training of Teachers,” issued while I write. These regula
tions provide that no candidate for admission to any training college
may under any circumstances be rejected on the ground of religious
faith, “or by reason of his refusal to undertake to attend or abstain
from attending any place of religious worship, or any religious obser
vance or instruction in religious subjects in the college or elsewhere."1
The last words, which I have italicised, are obviously incompatible with
the requirement of any religious belief whatever in candidates for
admission. They clearly leave it open to the intending student to
decline any Bible instruction or any lectures in “divinity.” But, of
course, the wise men of the Board of Education are quite aware of the
facility with which such a regulation may be evaded in already estab
lished training colleges. They therefore add another regulation, that
after August ist, 1907, no new sectarian training college shall be
recognised, nor any new hostel, unless connected with an unsectarian
institution. Moreover, to ensure compliance with these regulations, as
far as possible, the Board will prohibit the examination of candidates
by college authorities as a condition of admission. . Other means, of
course, will be taken to secure the necessary intellectual fitness of
candidates. But the colleges are to be left under no temptation to
favour their own theological persuasion. Now, surely, if such regula
tions are consistently carried out, they will of themselves, without any
new Education Bill, make the future use of the Bible in school impos
sible. For no student can be compelled to receive any instruction
therein either in his college “or elsewhere.” Now, if under such
circumstances any would desire still to have the Bible in school, they
neither love nor honour the book as I do.
Unfortunately, however, this does not appear to be admitted by the
Ministers of the Crown who are responsible for the new regulations.
And a brief note of the attitude they assumed towards an important
and influential deputation of Church dignitaries who, on July 20th,
schools” of that Puritan theology propagated under the form of “simple Bible
teaching.” . But even if the new Educational Bill should deny them the legal right,
the moral right will remain. I am well aware that Mr. Lloyd-George would repudiate
with honest indignation any idea of maintaining Puritan privilege. But to Church
men “ simple Bible teaching” is Puritanism. So it is to Catholics and to Unitarians
and Rationalists. And I think it is in the course of these pages proved to be
really so.
1 Regulations for the Training of Teachers, 8 (d).
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
xiii
1907, protested against those regulations, may well find a place among
the signs of this time. It is only due to the high ecclesiastics, headed
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who represented Church opinion, to
acknowledge that they argued their case with moderation and with the
inevitability of conviction necessarily involved in their view of life. On
the other hand, the chief merit of the response made by the Prime
Minister and Mr. McKenna was their emphatic distinction between
the denominational and the national point of view. They did not
deny that if teachers were to give instruction in Anglican doctrine they
must receive Anglican training. But they did deny that this was a
purpose for which public money could be fairly ear-marked. So far as
statutes and prescription guaranteed for the present the existence of
training colleges with a “ denominational atmosphere,” they admitted
the legality of privilege. But so far as statutes and prescription left the
Board of Education a free hand in administering grants of public
money for individual students, they insisted that national and not
denominational interests must determine their action.
But one cannot help regretting that they gave their whole case
away by needless deprecation of “the secular solution.” For surely, if
a teacher requires Anglican training before he can give Anglican
instruction, he must also require Biblical training before he can give
“ simple Bible teaching ”—all the more, indeed, if he is to make it
really simple. But, so far as the regulations show, no student is obliged
to receive such training. The Government abjures all responsibility for
such things, but will not allow a student to be rejected by any college
on account of his refusal to “attend any place of religious worship, or
any religious observance, or instruction in religious subjects, in the
college or elsewhere.” Indeed, to put the matter plainly, the only
forces on which religious people can rely to get these young people
trained for simple Bible teaching are church or chapel opinion, under
hand preferences, spiritual espionage, and in the last issue the social
boycott.
Now, if by deprecating the “secular solution” our statesmen mean
only that they desire a cultivation of right feeling and pure emotion, of
reverence, brotherly love, and loyalty to the real order of the universe, I
imagine that everyone must agree with them. But there is usually
more than this connoted by language of that kind. For the idea seems
to be that something very simple and obvious to common humanity is
Ambiguity
of the
phrase
“ secular
solution.”
�xiv
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
offered instead of ecclesiastical mysteries. But surely, when we
remember that “simple Bible teaching” includes Creation, the Fall,
the Deluge, the conquest of Canaan, God’s delight in David the man of
blood, the Virgin-Birth, the Resurrection and the Ascension, we can
hardly help feeling that the concomitant rejection of the Church
Catechism is rather like “straining out the gnat and swallowing the
camel.”
Thus much by way of new Preface has been necessary to indicate
some signs of the times that have risen above the horizon since the first
edition was issued, and in view of which I have considerably altered
and enlarged the scope of the work. But for the sake of historical
continuity the Preface to the first edition is reprinted here, and the
story of the strange lapse of Nonconformity from its former consistency
is repeated, because it is at least of some importance to keep on
record the fact that objection to the “Compromise” of 1871 did not
originate with unbelievers in the Christian revelation, but with lovers of
the Bible. For a similar reason a considerable part of the earlier
chapters has been preserved in the original form, because it is of still
greater importance to remember that long before 1871 the first promoters
of “secular” schools were not “infidels,” but religious men.
J. A. P.
August, 1907.
�PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
Thirty years ago, in 1871, when the first School Board for London
accepted, with a close approach to unanimity, the well-known resolution
proposed by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, M.P., in favour of Bible
teaching in the schools, there was a small minority of three who
recorded their votes against it. Not one of these three was insensible
of the value and importance of the Bible in the education of humanity.
On the contrary, they had a reverence for it which was certainly not
shared by some of those who voted for the motion. Indeed, two of
them had devoted their whole energies up to that date to the work of
religious instruction. The first of the three was the Rev. Benjamin
Waugh, whose name is now known and honoured throughout the world
for the salvation he has brought to tens of thousands of suffering
children. The second was the late Mr. Chatfeild Clarke, a sincerely
religious Unitarian. The third was the writer of the following pages.
Few, if any, would like to confess that they have passed through
thirty years of experience without changing an opinion; and I hope I
have changed many opinions for the better. But all that I have
observed in the course of many imperfect labours in the field of
education has only confirmed the conviction expressed by that vote;
the conviction that we should have better served the interests of
religion as well as of education if we had acted on the judgment of the
older Nonconformists, that the Bible is not a proper subject for State
patronage and control. In so doing we should only have followed the
example set us by those States of Greater Britain whose eyes discern
the future more surely than ours.
J. A. P.
October, 1901.
XV
�*** In the following pages I mean by “ State schools ” all schools
supported by rates and taxes and subject to the Board of Education.
By “ municipal schools ” I mean schools provided, managed, and
partly supported by County or Town Councils. By “transcendental"
religion or doctrines I mean religious beliefs or dogmas that transcend
or go beyond the sort of experience or evidence usually required for
justice or legislation, and which are also outside the practical necessities
of citizen life.
�THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL
I.
THE BIBLE SPHINX
The problem of the right use of the Bible in the nation’s schools is
a question of morality quite as much as of religion. Yes, say the
advocates of its indiscriminate use, it is a question of morality, because
you can have no morality without religion, and no religion without the
Bible. Without stopping now to argue either of the points thus raised,
I may remind the holders of such opinions that some noteworthy men
of their persuasion have made these very points a reason for objecting
to the indiscriminate use of the Bible in the schools; and by the
phrase “indiscriminate use” I mean placing it in the hands of every
teacher, whether Catholic, Evangelical, or Rationalist, to give to the
children of believers and unbelievers alike explanations and instruction
therefrom in the principles of the Christian religion and of morality.
The once-honoured name of Edward Miall represents now, I suppose,
an extinct species of Nonconformity. Yet, whatever may have been
the defects of adaptability which made the sectarian struggle for
existence fatal to it, that obsolete type of Nonconformity at least
commanded respect by its moral consistency. For when it proposed
“the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control” it
meant all that it said; and was just as much averse to “State Patronage
and Control” in the school as in the Church. And therefore, from the
time of Sir James Graham’s Bill, which dates my earliest recollection of
the struggle for national education, the majority of English Noncon
formists stood out against any statutory system of State schools.1 This
attitude was for many years impersonated in Edward Miall, who held
that under such a system it would be impossible to exclude the Bible,
and that the Bible could not be properly taught by unspiritual, still less
by unsympathetic or unbelieving, persons. Thus, precisely because in
their view no morality was possible without religion, and religion meant
to them the Bible as a divine revelation, they insisted that the Book
was too sacred a thing for indiscriminate use in the sense defined above;
1 The weaker brethren supported the British and Foreign School Society, which
accepted Government grants. But they vainly thought that this did not commit them
to the principle of a statutory system of schools.
D
I
The
Miallites
�2
Devout
Secularists.
Speech of
Sir James A.
Picton in
1850.
THE BIBLE SPHINX
and, therefore, they dreaded the merging of their Voluntary schools in a
State system.
The next step in the development of Nonconformist opinion on the
question is, I fear, entirely forgotten by a younger generation, who think
of “ secularists ” in regard to national education as Secularists in belief.
Now, among the many historical mistakes for which ambiguity of
language, and especially of party epithets, is responsible, few are more
absurd than this perversion of recent fact. For just before and after
the middle of last century the prophetic eye that is sometimes a gift of
earnest religion began to discern not only the inevitability, but the
moral and intellectual necessity, of a statutory system of elementary
schools. And then some of the most earnestly religious among the
Nonconformists—such as the Rev. Edward Baynes and the late Dr.
Samuel Davidson—suggested that the difficulty might be evaded by
confining State or municipal schools to “ secular ” subjects, and leaving
to the Churches the responsibility for supplementing by religious
instruction this confessedly imperfect training.
I do not know that I can give a better illustration of the views then
held by many of the most devout Nonconformists than a quotation
from a speech delivered in 1850 by my father, the late Sir James A.
Picton, who was born and brought up among the Wesleyans, and was
thoroughly evangelical in his belief. At a meeting summoned by
several influential men in Liverpool, to petition Parliament in favour of
secular education, he moved the following resolution : “That, in order
that the rights of conscience may be effectually secured, it should be a
fundamental rule that nothing should be taught in any of the schools
which favours the peculiar tenets of any religious sect or denomination.”
But the speaker did not see in these words any suggestion of the future
“ compromise.” He believed that to avoid tenets peculiar to a part only
of the nation it would be necessary to confine instruction to secular
subjects. At the outset he referred to an article in the Nonconformist
newspaper, then conducted by Edward Miall, and strongly opposed to
any rate-aided system of schools. He then proceeded as follows :—
The gist of the argument is this : that because there are some things
in which it would be wrong for the community or State to interfere,
therefore the community should interfere in none, but should leave
everything to be effected by voluntary effort...... Is the illumination of
our streets to be considered all-important, and is the lighting-up of the
lamp of knowledge in the souls of darkened millions to be deemed
matter of no concern to the community as such?...... If it be right to
provide a library, it cannot be wrong to teach to read ; if it be just in
principle for the State to provide the means of intellectual gratification,
it cannot be unjust to afford the necessary preparation for its enjoyment.
...... The object to be attained is the communication of that knowledge
which shall fit a man to understand his social duties and duly to perform
his part in relation to this world. This is common ground on which all
�THE BIBLE SPHINX
3
can meet, and beyond this the community has no right to proceed.
Religious liberty should be absolute, or it is worthless. There cannot
justly exist any modification of it. The rights of conscience must be
held paramount to all mere human laws...... The practicability of the
system of education which we advocate has already been proved with
the most complete success in the New England States of America......
But this system is called irreligious, godless, and inimical to religion.
Could I bring my mind to this conclusion, I should regard the system
with the utmost abhorrence. I have been engaged as a Sunday-school
teacher for the last twenty-five years, in attempting to communicate
religious instruction to the young, and sooner would I consent to this
right arm being severed from my body than it should be upheld in the
support of any project adverse to religious truth. It is because I
consider this system most favourable to religious teaching that I give it
my warmest support. Let us look at the question fairly...... A news
paper is not of necessity irreligious unless it contain a theological
treatise or a sermon. The utmost that can fairly be said is that secular
teaching is incomplete ; but it is good as far as it goes. Now what
have religious teachers principally to contend with?...... Not so much, I
will take upon myself to say, the actual prevalence of vice in the young
as a degree of mental apathy or brutal ignorance, to remove which (in
Sunday-schools) often involves a most serious waste of time and labour.
...... A system, therefore, which should remove this obstacle, so far from
being unfriendly to religion, ought to be looked on as its most powerful
auxiliary. But, again, the communication of religious instruction1
requires a different mode of treatment from secular instruction. In the
latter some degree of coercion is absolutely necessary, and the attempt
to combine the two in simultaneous instruction is too often nominal
rather than real, a profession rather than a practice. The element of
religion should be love ; its teaching should be the voluntary effusion of
a devoted heart. The affections of the young should be called into
play, and everything should partake of the gentle and healing influences
of Him who “ spake as never man spake.” In thus enlightening the
minds of the young, and fitting them for the reception of religious truth,
I believe we are acting in accordance with the precepts of the divine
Redeemer, who instructed His disciples to “render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
No patriotic mind can look abroad on the heaving masses of life
around us increasing daily in consciousness of strength, without some
degree of apprehension arising, not from the character of our country
men’s hearts, but from the ignorance and darkness of their minds. The
heart of the Englishman still swells with the same generous and manly
emotions as it has ever done. The same hatred of oppression, the
same love of order, the same sense of justice and right, still form the
leading features of his character. But he is dark and longs for light.
1 What the speaker had in his mind was not the teaching of Jewish history, which
of course, if sincerity were allowed, might be communicated as easily as Greek or
Roman myths, but rather the conveyance of “grace and truth.” I am aware that
the distinction sounds antiquated now. And I cordially agree that, since character
and conduct are the highest educational end, every teacher, whether in so-called
“secular” schools or Sunday-schools, ought to be privileged to convey grace and
truth if he can. But in the nation’s schools the exercise of this high prerogative
must needs be subject to two essential conditions : (i) That he shall not wound the
religious susceptibilities of parents ; (2) that he shall never be faced with the dilemma
of hypocrisy or resignation if he should happen to differ from the religion of the
majority. And under resignation I include surrender of moral teaching.
�I
4
THE BIBLE SPHINX
Shall it not be given him ? He thirsts for knowledge. Shall not its
refreshing streams be poured into his soul? Justice, kindness, safety,
patriotism, all answer yes! “Wisdom and knowledge must be the
stability of our times ; then may we hope that the fear of the Lord will
be our treasure.”
Plausible but
fallacious
criticism of
the "secular
solution.”
Three
courses con
ceivable ;
but only one
possible.
Justice and patriotism may have answered “Yes,” but sectarianism
answered “No.” And in the sequel it was seen that the latter voice
was, unfortunately, more potent than was expected by such guileless
prophets as the speaker.
Of course, such a proposal as the above was open to obvious
criticism, on account of its suggested separation of things inseparable.
But many advocates of so-called “ secular ” schools were quite as well
aware as their critics that the distinction between things sacred and
secular is purely arbitrary. They knew that a religion of daily life—of
reverence, of devotion, of enthusiasm for good—was worth more than
all the rules of arithmetic, but that it might, and would, be taught, or
rather inspired, by a good man or good woman even in the process of
teaching those rules. They could not, however, quite see how it was
possible for such a religion of daily life to be naturally or effectively
taught in a course of Bible lessons wherein the good man or good
woman was forced to tell lies. And this they held must be the result
in a good many instances if teachers were accepted without any profes
sion of creed, but were expected to teach the average creed of the
nation, whether they believed it or not.
Now, this difficulty might be avoided in one of three ways—either
by allowing every teacher to use the Bible just as he would any other
book, and to say of it precisely what he felt, just as he would about the
Pilgrim's Progress or Paradise Lost; or, secondly, by allowing only
the use of an authorised selection of Bible extracts illustrating the
beauty of goodness; or, finally, as suggested by the so-called “ secu
larists,” by keeping the Bible out altogether. The first solution is, of
course, abstractly the right one, and in a hundred years will probably
be adopted. But, so long as any considerable section of the people
regard the Bible as miraculous and infallible, that solution is impos
sible. And this should be remembered by liberal thinkers, who talk
about the Bible as a “ classic,” which it would be vandalism to exclude
from the schools. Nor am I convinced by Dr. Frank Hayward’s
urgent and able plea that the Bible, treated on Herbartian principles,
leads the child through “historical culture-steps”1—is, in fact, savage
with the young barbarian, mythological with the boyish dreamer, while
it dramatises the evolution of despotic law and then of responsible
1 Reform of Moral and Biblical Education on the Lines of Herbartianism,
Critical Thought, and the Ethical Needs of the Present Day. (Swan Sonnenschein
and Co. ; 1902.)
�THE BIBLE SPHINX
5
freedom. For it seems to me that the writer gives up the whole case
when he admits that Jowett’s suggestion to “treat the Bible like any
other book ” is an impossible one. But the freedom of exposition
which Dr. Hayward himself advocates would be generally regarded as
compliance with Jowett’s suggestion, and would therefore be equally
impracticable. To say nothing of denominational State schools, which
are still very numerous, the local education committees, selected largely
for religious reasons, would not allow it. And if any teacher dared to
treat the stories of the Patriarchs, or Joseph, or David, or still more
the first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, in accordance with the
modern criticism approved by Dr. Hayward, the debates of the local
authority would have a special value for the local Press. The second
solution, the selection of non-controversial passages, was advocated by
the late Professor Huxley. But when he realised his failure, and saw
what came of it, he was candid enough to own that the third solution
would have worked practically better than his.1 Those who advocate
this solution quite share the regret of liberal religionists that most of
our great colonies and the United States have found it necessary
generally to exclude or severely to limit in their primary schools the use
of so precious an inheritance from great times of old. They would
even agree that the expedient is a humiliating one. But, then, they do
not think that the humiliation attaches to those who would treat the
Bible like any other book. They rather think it falls on those who
persist in investing it with unreal attributes, such as forbid truth and
sincerity in using it.
The idea of a book absolutely without an error is now generally,
even by most of the religious sects, regarded as a figment of the ages of
ignorance. But, while the possibility of error is allowed, the admission
of its actual presence is guarded and limited by considerations which
have no relation whatever to evidence. It is, I believe, common now
for schoolmasters who know anything of geology to explain to their
pupils that in the Mosaic account of creation the word “ day ” does not
mean twenty-four hours, but an indefinite period of time. Yet those
teachers whose culture enables them to estimate the force of congruity
in determining the meaning of words, whether in literature or law,
must feel sure that the six-times repeated refrain, “The evening and
the morning were the ------ day,” determines beyond question the
intention of the writer to picture an ordinary day of twenty-four hours.
1 In a conversation with myself. The plan was never adopted, except in the
sense that, as even fanatics would not insist on having every word of the Bible read in
the schools, some selection was inevitable. But it was not made on Professor
Huxley’s lines. It kept always in view the dogmas common to the evangelical
denominations.
Prof.
Huxley's
proposal.
An inf lllible
book recog
nised no
where but in
school.
�6
The teacher
and Genesis.
The inquisi
torial rate
payer.
THE BIBLE SPHINX
Such teachers may know that various ancient commentators have felt
the need of a larger space of time for so majestic a work. But this
does not affect the impression made on their common sense that when
a man of Hebrew race wrote “ evening and morning ” he must certainly
have had in his mind the ordinary Jewish mode of reckoning from
sunset to sunset. If, therefore, he tells his young students of truth
that the sacred writer meant thousands of ages when he wrote “ days,”
this teacher knows in his heart of hearts that he is not speaking the
truth required at the moment.
It does not in the least matter whether the view here taken as to the
significance of “ evening and morning” be correct or not. The point is
that it is conscientiously held by a large number of educated teachers
who are required to teach the. Bible to children as “the word of God.”
And, of course, this special detail as to the meaning of the six days is
only fixed upon for distinctness of illustration. But let us leave that
detail, or suppose it obscured in a haze of generalities about the
undeniable dignity and occasional sublimity of the Bible story of
Creation. From the “ Broad Church ” point of view we are told that,
whatever may be the sacred writer’s errors in science, no ancient myth,
no poetic imagination of uninspired men, ever so nearly approximated
to the actual facts of the earth’s origin and development as recorded in
the rocks. Be it so—at least, for the purpose of our present argument.
Then let the teacher be free to tell this to his pupils; and, if he is a
man who happens to know where the narrative came from, let him be
free to tell his pupils further that it is a revised and improved edition of
a story found inscribed on clay tablets among the ruins of Babylon.
Certainly, if he were allowed to take this course, he would be saved
from much humiliating prevarication about the “ firmament in the
midst of the waters,” “ dividing the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament,” and about
the grass and herbs and fruit-trees which brought forth seeds and fruit
before the sun was made, and about the creation of birds before the
“ creeping thing and beast of the earth.” He might most honestly tell
the children that, with all its mistakes, the first chapter of Genesis is a
most precious and touching record of some devout soul’s effort to find
the secret of the world in God. But the requirement that he shall set
it forth as a direct revelation from the Creator of what he did before
there was any man to see it is surely a sore strain on any morality in
which truth has its proper place.
The conservators of a decaying creed, however, demur to any such
freedom on the part of teachers. “ We pay our rates and taxes,” they
say, “ to have the Bible taught in its simplicity as the word of God. It
would be an outrage on our conscience if teachers were allowed to treat
�TIIE BIBLE SPHINX
7
it as a human book.” And the advocates of a rate-aided Gospel in
municipal schools would add that it is not sectarian religion they want
—not, for instance, the Independent theory of Church government, nor
Presbyterianism, nor Infant Baptism, nor any such high matters -but
only the simple truths of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Atone
ment, and Immortality in heaven or hell, and Salvation by the blood
of Jesus. A good man whose notion of catholic comprehension is
embodied in the Union of the Evangelical Free Churches cannot
conceive that there is any touch of sectarianism in State-school religion
as thus defined. Perhaps he never meets with anyone who does not
hold the simple gospel composed of those doctrines. And if he hears
that such eccentric heretics really do exist, he waves them out of sight
with such phrases as “entirely exceptional” and “negligible minority.”
Whether that answer to the conscientious plea raised by these heretics
is in accordance with fact will be a question for our consideration later,
though I may remark, in passing, that the first years of the twentieth
century have already exposed the arrogance of any such assumption.
For the “ New Theology ” movement—already mentioned in the
Preface to the present edition of this Essay—has certainly not caused,
but only revealed, the widespread scepticism pervading the outwardly
orthodox majority.
Meantime, I would only observe that the “Nonconformist con- Change in^
science ” has not always been content to measure its own rights by the formist consize of the minority it represented. I am old enough to remember
times when the existence of even ten righteous men conscientiously
objecting to pay their parish church rates, though there might be five
hundred anxious to pay, was thought by good Nonconformists quite
a sufficient reason for resistance, even at the cost of distraint or
imprisonment.
While freely granting that in this preliminary statement of the issue
there are involved many incidental points on which I can have no hope
of sympathy from the majority, yet, if the substance of it be summarised,
I do not see how it can be denied without contradiction of patent facts
notorious to all. Who will dispute that on the relations of religion to
moral instruction, and of the Bible to religion, discordant and irrecon
cilable opinions are held with equal intensity of conviction by many of
the worthiest members of the commonwealth ? But those differences
are more than merely intellectual divergences. They touch on deepest
faiths and inspiring hopes and infinite fears. They are the clash of
mutually contradictory oracles held by opponents in the debate to be
the divinest utterance of their deepest and most real being. Indeed, the
differences are such that, if the opinions of any one group are adopted
as the law of the people’s schools, all other citizens must suffer painful
�8
The only
way.
TI1E TITLE SPHINX
and dishonourable disabilities. No matter what may be the selection
made, whether the opinions of Conformists or Nonconformists, of
Catholics or Protestants, of Rationalists or of “unsectarian” Evan
gelicals, all the rest must endure what they regard as the perversion
of the State’s authority and resources to mischievous and demoralising
uses. As ratepayers they must support out of their wages or wealth the
propagation into the new age of doctrines which they detest. As
teachers they must either play the hypocrite or take an inferior position.
As parents they must either acquiesce in the instillation into their
children’s tender minds of what to their parental affection seems
dangerous poison, or, by availing themselves of the “ Conscience
Clause,” they must inflict on their families the fate of little pariahs
during all their school hours. As citizens they must submit to have the
whole moral energy of the land they love devoted to immortalising
errors which, according to their point of view, may seem superstitious or
godless, loose and latitudinarian or promotive of priestcraft, but at any
rate offensive to some dearly cherished faith.
Under such circumstances I cannot see how the conclusion is to be
avoided, that the only way of treating the Bible honestly and reverently
in our educational system is to leave it to the voluntary action of
Churches, Sunday schools, and other religious organisations, to which
its popularity has been much more due than to State patronage and
control. In this conclusion I am supported by the invariable acknow
ledgment of reasonable religious people that such a course is the only
logical one, though persistent sentiment resists it. But there are some
cases in which English contempt for logic in legislation is obviously
mischievous and misplaced. And those are cases in which not merely
a rough adjustment to an average expediency is required, but an
acknowledgment of the sovereignty of some moral right. Of this
instances might be found in the history of religious toleration, the
slave trade, and slavery itself. Or if we come down to our own times, the
story of the opium trade with China—nay, also of Chinese labour in the
d ransvaal—proves abundantly that where the dictates of logic establish
moral claims the plea of expediency is always in the end overborne.
Some ingenious and plausible objections to the sovereignty of justice
in this case will be best treated later on. But if the Bible has to stand
like a mysterious and fatal Sphinx, with its unanswered questions and
its dire penalties at the gates of knowledge, that is not the fault of the
so-called secularists, but rather of the religionists, who refuse to
national school teachers unfettered freedom in the interpretation of
the Book.
�II.
RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
“ Religious equality ” has too often been interpreted to mean equality
of privilege for Christian sects. We have not yet entirely outgrown
the feeble tolerance of kindly Commonwealth Puritans who would
extend the protection of the law to Presbyterians, Independents,
Baptists, and even Quakers, but who would bore with a hot iron the tongue
of a man who should outrage their “ fundamental ” beliefs. Modern
sentiment, indeed, protects us from too close an imitation of seventeenth
century practice in this respect. But in the assumption that the claim
to religious equality before the law is morally invalid in the case of
Unitarians, Rationalists, Pantheists,1 and Agnostics, the germ of the
old cruelty still survives. Now that is just the assumption which has
underlain all nineteenth-century discussion by liberal Christians of the
rights of “ultra-Rationalists,” or disbelievers in any revelation made by
a personal God.
The “ Broad Churchman ” repudiates with honest indignation any
lingering desire to subject even the “ Infidel ” to secular pains and
penalties on account of his unbelief. But he retains an equally honest
conviction that the “ Infidel,” by his alleged voluntary alienation from
the spiritual life of the Commonwealth, has forfeited any claim to
equal consideration with Christians on any question affecting the
establishment, endowment, or other public expression of the national
religion. This description of the attitude of liberal Christians towards
ultra-Rationalists can hardly be accused of exaggeration. Indeed,
there are not a few among the former whose objection to the unrestricted
citizenship of the “Infidel” is much more distinct. They say that he
dishonours their God and Saviour, and that, though they hope his
invincible ignorance may be leniently considered by the Supreme
1 If I do not mention “Atheists,” it is because I do not recognise the term as
properly applicable to any actual form of belief or unbelief. I never met, nor do I
expect ever to meet, a man who would deny that being is eternal. All the self-styled
“Atheists” I have ever known have simply denied that my idea of God, or any
other idea of God, answers to their notion of eternal being. I am bound to respect
their negative attitude. But I should call it Agnosticism, not Atheism. When I
find a man who positively denies that there is anything eternal, or, in other words,
who thinks that at one moment—so to speak—in the infinite past there was nothing,
and at the next moment there was everything, or “the promise and potency” of
everything, I will allow him the name of Atheist. But I shall not feel bound to
respect his intellect.
9
Limited
notions of
religious
equality.
�IO
At least it
should in
volve the
abolition of
compulsory
or merce
nary sacri
lege.
Strain on
conscience
sometimes
involved in
“ simple
Bible teach
ing.”
RELIGIOUS EOUA LI T\
Judge, yet they cannot consent to involve the nation in moral peril by
extending to him a “religious equality” inapplicable to irreligion.
It may be readily acknowledged that from this point of view the
problem of religious equality raises issues far too vast to be adequately
treated in connection with the right use of the Bible in the nation’s
schools. But it will presently be seen that, though we cannot help
indicating those larger issues, we do not need to lose ourselves in them.
For even if we grant, what I, for one, absolutely decline to do, that for
the public expression or recognition of the nation’s religious life the
legal recognition of the Bible is desirable—as, for instance, in the
Coronation service, and in swearing witnesses—yet everyone must
surely acknowledge that if any particular public use of the Bible
involves hypocrisy and lying, that use becomes a sacrilege, because, in
theological language, it desecrates the vessels of the Temple by
devoting them to the service of Satan. Now, precisely this is actually
involved in the use of the Bible in schools according to the great
Smith “Compromise.” Such an objection can only be met by asserting
that the desecration is not inherent in the legal usage of the book, but
in the infidelity or extreme Rationalism of those who cannot use it
aright. And this necessarily involves the corollary that none who are
unable honestly to use the Bible in accordance with prevalent opinion
ought to accept any office in which such use is required. Now that
means practically the exclusion of all who cannot accept the residuum
of Biblical belief common to Anglicans, Presbyterians, Independents,
Baptists, and Methodists. The full justification of this assertion must
be reserved for a later stage of the argument, when we come to discuss
more particularly the position of teachers under the present order of
things. Meanwhile I only assume that, if this be so, it raises the
question of religious equality for Rationalists in a practical and limited
form, such as need not carry us very far into the vast issues suggested
above.
We need not, for instance, discuss the Broad Church idea that
individual alienation from the spiritual life of the Commonwealth may
justify the exclusion of that individual from entire religious equality.
For obviously we have to do here not with the spiritual life of the
nation, but with the Biblical theories which a national school teacher
is, as a matter of course, expected to hold and enforce. It is all very
well to say that “ theories ” are not expected, but practical teaching.
Yet if the practical point be the historical truth of the six days’
creation, or of the conversation of Eve and the Serpent, or of the
argument of Balaam’s ass with its master, or the three days’ lodging of
Jonah in the belly of a whale, or the Virgin Birth, or the feeding of
five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, or the bodily
�RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
ii
resurrection of Jesus guarded by angels, it is difficult to see how the
conscience of the teacher can avoid the issue of fiction or fact.
Either the teacher holds that the accuracy of such narratives is
guaranteed by an authority independent of historical evidence, or he
does not. If he holds the former theory, he can, of course, honestly
teach these stories as narratives of fact. But if he does not hold it,
even the chance hints occasionally let fall in the secular history lectures
of a training college are enough to suggest to him that for such stories
historical evidence of the sort required for secular events is not
forthcoming. And unless he have a mind exceptionally impervious to
the echoes of criticism in the air, he feels in his inmost soul that,
however useful as parables or otherwise those old-world tales may be,
they have no claim to be treated as historically true.
We are not, however, at this point concerned with the special diffi
culties of intelligent teachers. I have referred to the effect of historical
lessons in training colleges only as suggestive of the far more pronounced
scepticism pervading the wider circles of moderately-educated people,
who are under less temptation to a biassed judgment. And if I use the
word “scepticism,” I take it in its proper and original sense of an inquiring
spirit. I do not say, and I do not believe, that more than one-fifth, if
so many, of English-speaking people reject entirely the idea of a divine
revelation given them in the Bible. But I do maintain, because the
tone of our current literature of social conversation proves it, that the
old matter-of-course assumption of the divinely-guaranteed historic
accuracy of the Hexateuch, and the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings,
and Chronicles, - has entirely disappeared from all circles of tolerably
well-educated society. No literary aspirant to the pages of our most
eminently respectable monthly magazines has now the slightest hesitation
in treating the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as a figment of the
Great Sanhedrim, or of unsupported tradition. The popularity of the
late Professor Huxley’s controversial essays cannot be wholly explained
by their brightness and vigour. Admiring readers might not go all
lengths with him in his negative conclusions. But they were not
revolted by his claim to treat the Bible on the common-sense principles
that he applied to science; and even this extent of acquiescence
involved an immense shifting of the foundations on which their ideas
of cosmic and human origins, as well as of Judaism and Christianity,
had hitherto rested.
Reference to one recent publication alone may save us a good deal
of detail. Surely none but bigots can rejoice over the financial diffi
culties that prevented the completion of the “ Polychrome Bible.”
But if there should be any so unsusceptible to the real “powers of the
world to come ” as to imagine an interposition of a watchful Providence
Sceptical
attitude of
the ^eneraj
public.
The “Poly
chrome
Bible.”
�12
Religious
position of
its editors.
EELIGIO US EQUALITY
in this case, let them look at the volumes issued; let them note the
list of contributing scholars, nearly all belonging to churches reckoned as
orthodox; let them think of the amount of money sunk in a commer
cially unsuccessful, but magnificently prophetic, enterprise, and they will
be compelled to own that it indicates a flowing tide of new opinion about
the Bible. To describe it shortly, it is an incomplete edition of the
Hebrew Scriptures with a new translation, accompanied by brief
pregnant notes and a very few pictorial illustrations.
The feature from which the Polychrome Bible derived its name is
the variegated colouring of the pages designed to show at a glance the
various documents from which the Hebrew Scriptures, as we have them,
are believed by the editors to have been compiled. The treatment is
entirely and unreservedly free—as much so as if the subject were the
Vedas or the Zendavesta. It is at the same time profoundly reverential,
as is indeed most becoming whenever or wherever we study genuine
records of man’s struggle upwards from the passions of the brute to the
eternal life. The result, however, is a version subversive of many, or
indeed most, of our traditional ideas of the Bible. The translation, if it
is correct, which, so far as my knowledge goes, I believe it generally is,
would often make the evangelical interpretation of crucial passages
obviously impossible.1 The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is so
entirely rejected that the earliest documents therein of any length and
importance are attributed to the latter part of the ninth century B.c.,
while the narrative of creation in Genesis i. and Levitical regulations,
long defended as Mosaic, if nothing else was, are regarded as the work
of exiled Jews in Babylon about 500 b.c. The Prophecies of Isaiah are
assigned to a number of sacred bards, among whom the Isaiah of former
evangelical divines occupies a limited though luminous space. The
Psalms are “ the hymn-book of the second Temple.” We are
told that “it is not a question whether there be any post-Exilic Psalms,
but rather whether the Psalms contain any poems written before the
Exile.”
My point, however, is not the amount of importance to be attributed
to the scholarly judgment of the learned men responsible for this great
work, but rather their representative position in the world of religious
thought. Had they been condemned heretics, “ aliens from the
Commonwealth of Israel,” it might be said that their views are excep
tional and eccentric, at any rate of no value as evidence of the trend of
opinion. But so far is this from being a correct description that the
editors are all of them men of high position and some of distinguished
fame in English, American, or German Universities, and in communion
1 E.g., Isaiah vii. 14, where for “virgin” we read “young woman.”
�RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
i3
with national churches or other great and respected Christian denomi
nations. The chief editor was Dr. Paul Haupt, Professor of Hebrew
and the cognate languages in the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
and until 1889 Professor Extraordinarius of Assyriology in the University
of Gottingen, Hanover. Isaiah has been edited by Dr. T. K. Cheyne,
Canon of Rochester, and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture at Oxford. Exodus has been treated by Dr. Herbert E. Ryle,
Hulsean Professor of Divinity and President of King’s College,
Cambridge; the Book of Numbers by Dr. J. A. Paterson, Professor
at the Theological Seminary, Edinburgh ; and Deuteronomy by Dr.
George A. Smith, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis at
the Free Church College, Glasgow. There is no need to give the rest
of the thirty-eight names. With the exception of one Unitarian gentle
man and two Jewish scholars, the three editors of two minor books, all
of them would be recognised as official representatives of moderate
orthodoxy in religion.
Another proof of the revolution in opinion about the Bible is the
Encyclopedia Biblica, of which only one volume had appeared when the
first edition of the present Essay was published. This great and
scholarly work, though involving large expenditure, could hardly demand
the vast sum which would have been needed to carry out the original
idea of the Polychrome Bible with its Hebrew text, and English trans
lation, laboriously assigned to various older documents distinguished by
different colours. But in any case it must have been a costly work, and
the very fact of its completion in four large volumes suggests a popular
demand which could not have been found in Great Britain or America
fifty years ago. Not that there was less interest then in the Bible. But
the demand was almost exclusively for works which would prove the
Bible true. Now this is neither the motive nor the burden of the Encyclo
pedia Biblica. The one purpose is to ascertain the real facts and state
them. Nor does such a purpose in the least involve a negative or
iconoclastic zeal. For if the Bible were not a valuable inheritance of
mankind, such a work as this would not, morally or intellectually,
have repaid the enormous labour involved. And, like the parts of the
Polychrome Bible, it owes its existence, not to hesitant sceptics, still less
to “ blatant infidels,” but to clergymen and others, who are, many of
them, shining lights in reputedly orthodox churches.
Of the conclusions affirmed it may be said, generally, that while the
various writers differ considerably, there is scarcely one of them who can
be conceived as endorsing the idea of the Bible implied in the syllabuses
of scriptural instruction for public elementary schools.
The elaborate and searching article on the Gospels, running to 198
columns, is by two well-known authors—the Rev. Dr. Abbott, late Head
Similar case
of the En
cyclopedia
Biblica,
�T4
Thus
** simple
Bible teach
ing ” be
comes a
theological
test.
Limitations
of the
argument.
RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
Master of the City of London School, and Professor P. W. Schmiedel,
holding the Chair of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich. They are not
agreed, and the latter is much more “radical ” than the former. It must
not be assumed that I agree with him. For, if I point to the fact that
he allows only nine brief passages in the Gospels to be “absolutely
credible,”1 it is by no means for the purpose of endorsing any such
conclusion, but only to emphasise my main point here, that the dif
ferences of opinion among religious people are enormously great. From
which it follows that no education authority has a moral right to expect
all young teachers, fresh from the higher instruction now open to them,
to give, as a matter of course, such “ simple Bible teaching” as assumes
the historicity of the Gospels. And to exclude the increasing number
of those who cannot conscientiously do so would be a gross violation of
religious equality.
The inference I draw from such signs of the times as I have mentioned
is not an extravagant one. It is not that the majority of the people in
England or America have been converted to pure Rationalism, but only that
it is unjust and absurd to say that the rejectors of the historical accuracy
of the Bible are a negligible quantity, eccentric heretics, aliens from the
spiritual life of their race, and therefore rightly subjected to religious
disabilities where questions of national education are concerned.
Probably many of my liberal religious readers will think that I have
taken a great deal of unnecessary trouble to arrive at an obvious con
clusion. Of course that is so, they will say; but where are the religious
disabilities ? My answer is that those disabilities are twofold—first,
denial of the just rights of conscience ; secondly, exclusion from honest
and self-respecting service of the nation as teachers in its public schools.
I grant that, if disbelievers in Bible history can consent to a colourable
hypocrisy, they are not excluded ; but if anyone holds that eligibility to
appointment under such a condition constitutes religious equality, with
him I will not argue. I was brought up in a different school, and I
think it is a loss to the passing generation that the principles of that
school are, for the moment, out of fashion.
The argument of this chapter necessarily presupposes, as a condition
of its practical application, the stage of religious evolution reached by
England in our own age. But it would have been manifestly inap
plicable in any practical way of statesmanship to Wycliffe’s England or
even to Oliver Cromwell’s, as that great ruler was obliged sadly to
acknowledge.
Further, if there are now nations whose prevalent
religious feeling is mediaeval rather than modern, the argument would
be practically inapplicable also to them. But it does not in the least
1 Encyclopedia Blblica, s.v. “Gospels,” paragraphs 139-40.
�RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
15
follow that there is no such thing as eternal right. For, as I have said
elsewhere, the only intelligible sense in which moral truth can be called
eternal is this : “That whenever and wherever the same conditions occur
the same moral truth holds good.” 1 Thus, where the right of private
judgment on things religious has been popularly and authoritatively
affirmed, justice requires that each man should allow to all others the
same unreserved freedom of conscience which he claims for himself.
But where the right of private judgment is both popularly and authori
tatively denied, as it was in the Middle Ages, each man may feel bound
to be almost as watchful over his neighbour’s obedience to Church
authority as he is over his own. And when the alternative was ever
lasting hell-fire or heaven I can well conceive that the golden rule of
doing unto others as you would they should do unto you might well
suggest denunciation of the heretic for the salvation of his soul, or at
any rate for the prevention of the spread of his damnable errors.
The rule was the same; but the prevalence of superstition made the
conditions different, and therefore the practical application was different
from what seems right to us. But, at any rate, under mediaeval con
ditions compulsory uniformity of belief, so far as it could be practically
enforced, was perfectly defensible. There is nothing in this acknow
ledgment to detract in the least from our admiration of the martyrs for
individual conviction. Indeed, there is much to enhance our admira
tion. For they had to contend, not only against brute force, but against
the universal convention which confounded ecclesiastical obedience with
moral duty—just as, at the present day, acquiescence in “ simple
Bible teaching ” is regarded by many as a dictate of the moral law. Yet
surely England as a whole, England apart from Scotland or Ireland,
England of two or three hundred sects, England of a free Press and free
speech and “ liberty of prophesying,” England which has boldly inaugu
rated of late new programmes of free thought and of free religious
organisation, belongs to the twentieth century, not to the fourteenth,
and cannot, with any decency, longer maintain that religious equality
in the schools should be confined to Low Church and Nonconformist
sects.
1 Spinoza: A Handbook to the Ethics, p. 156 «•
�III.
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
b°fmit3th
Before the year 1870 the Nonconformists held that it is wrong, unjust,
Compromise and even cruel, to make a man pay for the maintenance and spread of
and after.
N
conformist
theones of
functions.
what he holds tQ be religioUS error.
j
old.fashioned enough fo be
of the same opinion still, unless we happen to live in a community that
still belongs to the Middle Ages. The sentimental generalities of
“ Broad Churchmen,” which appear singularly attractive to Noncon
formist “ perverts’’—like the late Right Hon. W. E. Forster1—have on
this subject blurred the boundary lines of right and wrong in the minds
of many influential men of Puritan traditions. With much plausibility
they say that men like the late Edward Miall were wrong in assuming
that there is a clear and straight-cut dividing-line between things
sacied and “secular.” They were wrong, also, in assuming that a
national or municipal government ought of right to confine itself to a
policy of gas and water, of sewage and sanitation. They were wrong,
agaill; in conceiving of government as a corporate policeman, whose
only duty is to keep individual citizens from wronging each other. If
the life of a man should be treated as a whole, and not as a mosaic of
religion, morality, business, and politics, so ought the life of a nation to
be treated as a whole. From that point ot view the business of a
Government is to foster and co-ordinate all healthy forms of the national
energy, w’hether ticketed as religious or secular, social or commercial,
aesthetic or practical, individual or collective. Nor is this reaction
against administrative nihilism ” confined to Broad Churchmen and
Nonconformists. It has generally the support of the Ethical Societies
and their organs, among whose aims the substitution of non-theological
ethics for religious instruction in the nation’s schools is prominent. I
do not understand, however, that the supporters of the Ethical Move
ment desire to make the denial of revelation a part of our school
teaching, still less to extort rates from the pockets of devout evangelicals
for the support of such teaching.
. ’ Though of limited outlook, Mr. Forster was a very shrewd man. The saying
attributed to him, that he “ would get over the religious difficulty in a canter,” at least
suggests his knowledge of Nonconformity in his day. He knew that if the sturdy
opponents of State patronage and control ” were allowed to have the “ simple Bible
teaching of their Sunday-schools patronised and endowed, their consciences would be
satisfied ; and they would not be able to conceive any reasonable objection on grounds
ot conscience by anyone else.
b
16
�THE NEW CHURCH RATE
17
It is at this point that I find a limit to the generous theories of the
State’s function, which have so largely superseded that of the corporate
policeman. There are, I believe, other limits; for many methods of
social action derive all their charm and effectiveness from voluntary
impulse, and are practically paralysed if this be superseded by law. But
we are concerned at present only with the particular limit that comes
into view when religion is touched. It was from this point of view only
that the Nonconformist opponents of church rates could be justified.
In extorting from them by force the support of transcendental1 doctrines
that they condemned, an indefensible wrong was done to their con
scientious convictions. This has now been conceded to them. But
most of the survivors of that struggle appear strangely blind to the
bearing of their own arguments on the education rate, so far as it is
spent on the present Bible teaching.
I am one of a school till lately “everywhere spoken against,” who,
just because we prize the Bible highly, regret very much to see the
venerable Book misused as it is in our schools. Its value to us consists,
not in any revelation or any otherwise inaccessible information supposed
to be found in its pages, but in the unrivalled power of spiritual and
moral inspiration inherent in its noblest utterances. Through all our
changes of opinion, surviving all denials forced on us by evidence and
honesty, rising triumphantly from the scientific grave to which a dead
creed has been committed, that power seems to us indestructible,
immortal. We do not think of the Bible less ; we think far more of it
than when we believed in Eve’s apple and Balaam’s ass. For then it
represented to us a series of violent dislocations of the order of nature.
But now the Bible is to us an age-long vision of truth disentangling
itself from error, of right slowly conquering wrong, of the emergence
through the illusions and lies and sufferings and struggles and passions
and aspirations of mankind of that more perfect state which, if the earth
last long enough, must bless some future generation, and which, by its
consummation of past, present, and future in one consciousness, may
well be called the eternal life, or even “ the fullness of the godhead
bodily.”
We think such a Book degraded to low uses when it is enthroned as
a fetish, before which judgment and reason grovel in the dust of super
stition. And we protest against being made to pay for such sacrilege.
Indeed, the wrong done to conscience in our case is much more offen
sive than anything that could be alleged by our predecessors under
church rates. For, after all, our evangelical fathers and grandfathers
1 As explained in a preliminary note, I use this epithet to describe doctrines going
beyond the sort of evidence usually required for justice or legislation, and also outside
the practical necessities of citizen life.
Limits to
such
theories.
Real value
of the Bible.
Degrada
tion of the
Bible.
�i8
Possible
limits to the
rights of
conscience.
Where its
claims are
indefeasible.
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
agreed almost entirely with the religious and moral teaching of the
Established Church. Their points of difference touched only eccle
siastical order and sacraments, which, however important in their view,
could hardly be said to affect fundamental morality. But we, in these
times, are forced to support a system which we not only suspect, but
know by experience, to be utterly inconsistent with a cultivation of that
“ truth in the inward parts ” which in the Bible itself the Eternal is said
to require.
I am not so foolish as to hold that legal compulsion is necessarily
barred the moment any plea of individual conscience is raised. I fully
acknowledge also the difficulty of drawing a clear line between legitimate
and illegitimate pleas of conscience. Nor is it essential to attempt it
here. I confine myself to one class of cases in which it seems unjust
and cruel to reject the plea. But I will offer one or two suggestions on
the general question.
In matters on which public opinion is much divided by differences
depending on sentiment rather than on evidence it is always dangerous
for authority to be intolerant of conscience in recusants. Further, if
the differences concern transcendental questions, with no immediate
or obvious bearing on the practical life of the commonwealth, such
intolerance is more than dangerous; it is wrong. For one need not be
a fanatical “individualist” to hold that some inner sources of individual
character and will are of priceless worth to the community, and should
be held sacred in every man. Among these we may surely count the
individual feeling of solitary responsibility to eternal Power for personal
loyalty to its rule. Without this, indeed, we have no true common
wealth at all. For any group of creatures who fulfil only by instinct,
and unconsciously, separate functions of convergent advantage to the
whole of that group, are more on the level of a hive than of a common
wealth. To this latter some intelligent consciousness of subordination
to a common end is necessary, and this cannot be permanently secured
without individual loyalty to a control higher than institutions and
more comprehensive than the State. It was an inarticulate feeling of
this truth which led the ancients to insist so much on religion as the
sanction of patriotism. This also was what St. Paul had in mind when
he said, perhaps too indiscriminately: “Let every soul be subject unto
the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers
that be are ordained of God....... Wherefore ye must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake.” But when the loyalties
clashed St. Paul resolutely obeyed the higher. It has taken the rulers
of this world a long time to find out that it is precisely such men who,
if only their conscience be respected, make the best citizens. In fact,
records of our own time—such as some of the proceedings under the
�THE NEW CHURCH RATE
i9
so-called Blasphemy Laws, and also under the Church Discipline Acts
—show that the lesson has not even yet been perfectly learned. But
we have surely got so far that, if any wrong done to conscience is clearly
made out, public opinion will insist on finding a remedy, lest so
precious an inspiration as that of individual loyalty to truth and right
should suffer sacrilege. My plea is that such a wrong is done by the
present system of Bible instruction in public schools, because it forces
every citizen, whatever his belief or unbelief, to pay for the propaga
tion of transcendental doctrines having no necessary bearing whatever
upon citizenship; and even though he may conscientiously think some
of those doctrines not only false, but immoral, still he must pay.
Before leaving this part of the subject, however, let me try to show
how such reasonable claims of the religious conscience as are here
raised may be distinguished from perverse individual revolts against
salutary State regulations. I will take the case of the self-styled
“Peculiar People,” a case by no means easy to deal with, but one
which an advocate of conscience-rights ought not to shirk. If I under
stand the position of these people rightly, it is their conscientious
conviction that the Bible requires them in cases of sickness to depend
on direct divine healing, without the intervention of a human physician.
I am not competent to discuss the legal difficulties which thus arise.
How far any man, whether a “ Peculiar ” brother or not, can be com
pelled to ask and act on medical advice for his child, just as he is
compelled to obtain “ efficient instruction ” for that child, I am not
lawyer enough to say. He is not compelled to go to the schoolmaster
for his child’s instruction if he can ensure it in some other manner. It
might be plausibly asked : Why, then, should he be compelled to go to
the physician for medical aid if he can obtain it in«some other manner?
But “ there is much virtue in an ‘ if.’ ” The legal view, or, at any rate,
the common-sense view—which lawyers tell me is the same thing—is
that the “if” here does in many cases introduce an impossible, and
therefore unreal, alternative. What the law requires is that the parent
shall do all within his power to prevent unnecessary suffering to his
child, and still more to save its life. Whether he be rich or poor, it is
within his power to obtain medical aid, and there are cases in which
legal evidence can prove that medical aid, so far as human judgment
can discern, would make all the difference between life and death. In
such cases “conscientious” objection to medical aid does not come
under the conditions laid down above as defining the rights of con
science.1 It may be, indeed, a case of false sentiment, but it is still
more a stolid refusal of evidence. Transcendental doctrine may,
1 See p. 18.
Spurious
claims. The
“ Peculiar
People."
�20
Difference
of the case
of the objec
tor to
vaccination.
THE NE W CHURCH RA TE
perhaps, be involved, and on that the parent may keep his own opinion.
But sickness and healing are matters of physiology rather than of
mysticism. They have a palpable and immediate bearing on the
practical life of the commonwealth. Where this is the case, and where
the requirement of medical aid is based upon an overwhelming con
sensus of experience and opinion, the community is abundantly justified
in telling the recalcitrant parent to keep his scruples for the kingdom of
heaven, and to render his due obedience to the kingdom of this world.
The conscientious objector to vaccination may claim to be in a
different and stronger position, not because his conscience is more
sacred than that of the “ Peculiar ” person, but simply because there is
not the same overwhelming consensus of experience and opinion to
support compulsory vaccination as there is to support compulsory
recourse to medical aid for serious illness. If experience had con
firmed Jenner’s assertion that one good vaccination would make the
patient insusceptible to small-pox for the remainder of his life, the
probability is that the question of compulsion would never have arisen.
The popularity at one time of the system of inoculation shows how
anxious people were to protect themselves. It is improbable that, if no
cases of small-pox after vaccination had been known, such a marvellous
preventive would have needed enforcement by fine or imprisonment.
But if, contrary to probability, resistance had been encountered similar
in its eccentricity to the attitude of the “ Peculiar People,” a claim
to exemption on conscientious grounds would have had small chance of
sympathy in the face of such overwhelming proof of a palpable and
obvious benefit to the practical life of the community. Even to the
plea that a man might well be allowed to leave his own children
unvaccinated, seeing that all others could, if they chose, be guaranteed
by this infallible antidote against danger from his neglect, it might perhaps
have been justly replied that he would be exposing his own children to
unnecessary danger and suffering, contrary to the spirit of modern law.
But all such arguments are annulled by the now notorious fact that the
vaccinated sufferers from small-pox outnumber the unvaccinated in
about the same proportion as the vaccinated bear to the unvaccinated
in the whole population.1 If a man draws from this fact the conclusion
that the alleged preventive makes no difference, but practically leaves
things just as they would be were vaccination entirely abolished, I do
not say that he would be unanswerable ; but I do say that it is unjust
to treat him as an obstinate fanatic or a traitor to society. This, in
1 See Report of the Dissentient Commissioners, annexed to that of the Royal
Commission on Vaccination, 1901. The “ Conscience Clause ” unanimously recom
mended on the motion of the late Lord Herschell would never have been suggested if
vaccination had accomplished what Jenner declared it would.
�THE NEW CHURCH RATE
21
fact, is just what the recent law has recognised by excusing from
compulsion all who, in proper form, make a declaration of conscientious
objection. In other words, the case is authoritatively pronounced to be
one in which the plea of conscience cannot justly be ignored.
Quakers and
I will take yet another case to elucidate the principle suggested war taxes.
above as a test of the rights of conscience. The other day I observed
in the newspapers the report of a sale by legal order of certain goods
belonging to a worthy Quaker who had refused to pay his taxes because
of the South African War. He would not voluntarily support bloodshed,
and therefore took joyfully the spoiling of his goods. But, with all
respect for one who is clearly a man of high character and strong
individuality, I hold his plea to be entirely illegitimate. The main
tenance of peace and the making of war both belong to the practical,
material life of the commonwealth. In such matters, if it is to act at
all, it must act as a whole. There may be, and there nearly always is,
division of opinion. But the majority determines the action, and it is
carried out as the action of the whole. On no other conceivable plan
could a commonwealth exist at all. This action as a whole, however, is
only secured by the subordination of the wills and opinions of the
minority to those of the majority. After doing all they can to secure
that right counsels should prevail, the minority are no longer responsible
in foro conscientice. To refuse at least passive obedience to the general
voice in a matter strictly within the functions of a commonwealth would
be to invalidate social order.
Of course, social custom or law may sometimes be so bad that it
ought to be resisted. And in that case chaos must be endured for a
while that a better order may succeed. But such extreme crises are
very exceptional, and perhaps they never arise unless the common
wealth, or those who usurp its powers, have exceeded its functions of
organising the practical, earthly (or, if we may use the word, secular)
life. This happened in the seventeenth century in England, and it is
the chronic state of things in Russia. But to say that the act of the
community in making external war can justify those who object to it in
refusing to pay taxes would be to declare any commonwealth impossible,
and to assert the principle of anarchism.
The conscientious objection felt by an increasing number of English Strength of
the case
people to be made to pay for the present Bible-teaching in the nation’s against the
Bible rate.
schools is not open to any such condemnation. Such teaching cannot
fairly be described as one of those public functions in which the
commonwealth, if it act at all, must act as a whole. Indeed, so far
as public elementary schools are concerned, such an assumption has
been solemnly repudiated by Parliament in the Act of 1870. That
Act does, indeed, forbid any “ creed or formulary distinctive of any
�22
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
particular denomination ”—a prohibition found perfectly consistent with
strongly dogmatic teaching. But it does not require that there shall be
any religious teaching at all. It throws the odium of persecution on
the local authority. Even in the elementary schools of the “ National
Society ” the State now declines any responsibility for religion except so
far as concerns the maintenance of the “ Conscience Clause.” It does
not examine in religion, and it does not “inspect” religious instruction.
It is clear, therefore, that in modern statecraft the support of religious
teaching is not placed on a par with the maintenance of war, or with the
provision of secular instruction as the duty of the whole commonwealth
acting together. Further, it cannot reasonably be said in defence of
municipal school practice that the infallibility of the Bible or its historic
accuracy, or the transcendental doctrines taught from it, have a palpable
or necessary bearing on the practical life of the nation. If, therefore,
any Rationalist were moved by his conscience to refuse to pay his
school rate on the ground that it is applied to propagate “free church ”
dogmas, his conduct would certainly not be open to the same criticism
as that of the conscientious Quaker mentioned above. And if the
evangelical Nonconformists were right, as I presume they still think
they were, in objecting to pay church rates, they ought to realise the
gross inconsistency of which they are guilty in compelling rejectors
of their creed to pay for teaching it. This is in flagrant contradiction
to the doctrine of religious equality which, with stammering tongues,
they still assert.
Survivors, if there are any, of the noble army of “church-rate
martyrs ” might ask why Rationalist nonconformity does not prove its
sincerity by a similar martyrdom. It is a question of proportion.
Unbelievers in supernatural religion have often gone to prison, or
suffered odious wrong in law courts, rather than play the hypocrite
But the devotion of part of a rate to a purpose they disapprove, while
they heartily applaud the use of the greater part of it, hardly seems to
them to justify martyrdom. The church rate was devoted wholly to
church uses. It would be scarcely becoming in the advocates of
religious equality as the right of a free-born Englishman to urge that
a man must have his goods distrained before he can fairly claim that
right.
�IV.
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
Religious equality is also outraged by the exclusion of non-Evangelical ^ouki^
Nonconformists from honest and self-respecting service of the nation in belief ex...
l-i
r
i
r t
elude from
its public schools. This is a wrong which cannot, ot course, be felt so the nation’s
widely as the last, because, naturally, those born with an imperious service
vocation to teaching are a small minority. But where this particular
form of injustice strikes it is felt with a special bitterness. And the
number whom it affects is rapidly increasing. I do not mean merely
that the number of silent protestants against the doctrinal residuum
constituting “undenominational religion” is increasing, but that the
number among them who find either open or tacit hypocrisy intolerable
is rapidly growing. In proportion as the impossibility of retaining the
old beliefs becomes more widely felt, the demand for relief from any
pretence of believing them becomes more urgent. There was a great
change in the theology of the middle classes during the later years of
the nineteenth century.
Even so recently as the School Board era of 1870, the sharpness of ^j^ons
the issue between the creed of the Evangelical Alliance and actual fact question is
.
.
0
. .
more urgent
was not generally realised with anything like the same distinctness as now than in
now. The significance of Assyrian and Egyptian records had not been
grasped except by a very few profound scholars. The Tell-el-Amarna
Tablets, with their revelation of the condition of Palestine about the
time assigned to the Mosaic exodus, had not been discovered. The
Polychrome Bible had not presented its rainbow spectre of Bible
origins. The Encyclopedia Biblica had not appeared. Even the
“ Moabite Stone,” though discovered in 1868, was not generally
known, nor for years afterwards fully appreciated. The inscription of
Menephthah, recording a victory over certain “ Israhili ” in North
Palestine, about the date when he was supposed to have been drowned
in a mad pursuit of Israel through the Red Sea, was as yet unknown.
The enormous antiquity of the human race, and even of civilisation and
organised religion, was as yet entirely under-estimated, but has since
been enlarged beyond the dreams of old-fashioned anthropologists by
recent excavations in Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Crete. So far as the
spade had then recovered the past of sacred lands, it was believed that
the correspondence of Egyptian, Assyrian, and Chaldean ceremonies
and forms of worship with Biblical references confirmed the Scripture
23
�24
Suspense
judgment
then more
possible
than now.
Acknow
ledgments
of a Free
Church
Council.
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
record; while the actual occurrence in inscriptions of names mentioned
m the Old Testament was thought to have finally settled the question
of its historical veracity. It is true that the epoch-making book of
Darwin had been published eleven years before. But even among
scientific men there was considerable hesitation in applying the theory
of natural selection to man. And religious liberals who toyed with
edged tools dwelt fondly on the absence of the “ missing link.”
While such was the state of popular knowledge and opinion, it was
not difficult for conscientious teachers of the young to find relief in
suspense of judgment. Members of a profession largely under clerical
influence, and charged quite as much with the moral as with the
intellectual training of their pupils, were naturally predisposed to
believe that it was their duty in the meantime to go on teaching
“divinity” as it had been taught to them. Comfort was found in the
reflection that God’s voice in nature and God’s word in the Bible could
not possibly contradict each other; and the meaning given to both
terms remained so very vague that there was ample scope for temporary
accommodation. Even in cases where inconveniently definite questions
were asked, it was always possible for instruction to disappear in a haze
of reverence. “Do you think, sir, that we must take this literally?”
asked a boy in a class studying the ass’s argument with Balaam.
“Such an occurrence,” replied the master, “is so very remarkable,
and, indeed, unparalleled, that in the present state of our knowledge I
would rather not give an opinion. Perhaps there is some explanation
of which we are not at present aware.” So long as this kind of mental
attitude remained possible the disabilities of doubt were not acutely
felt. The supposed foundations of morality could be accepted as they
stood, with an acknowledgment that their relation to the foundations of
knowledge was an unsolved question.
But the state of things is very different now. The surrender of the
historic accuracy of a large part of the Old Testament is so general
that a very considerable number of teachers are conscious of a clear
contradiction between what they are expected to teach and what they
themselves believe. It is difficult to understand how an honest man
can accept a position like that. In March, 1901, the “National
Council of the Evangelical Free Churches,” in its meetings at Cardiff,
heard some plain speaking on this point from the Rev. Dr. Monro
Gibson. It is true that his subject was that of Sunday-school teaching.
But the principles he laid down are plainly applicable to all national
schools in which the Bible is taught as a divine revelation.1 And,
1 The analogy between undenominational State schools and Nonconformist
Sunday-schools, so far as concerns religious instruction, is far closer than is commonly
supposed. The effect of Mr. W. H. Smith’s resolution of 1871 was practically to
�REIV RELIGIO US DISA BILITIES
25
although no Board-school teacher is called upon to sign a creed or to
make any profession of faith, he would not be allowed to give religious
instruction if he did not assume this view of the Bible in all his lessons.1
So far as the Bible is concerned, then, the words of Dr. Gibson have a
clear bearing upon the position of municipal school teachers. He fully
admitted that “ within recent years difficulties had arisen on account of
the change of view brought about in the minds of many Christians by
the results, or supposed results, of recent investigations.” He was quite
willing to allow to Sunday-school teachers a latitude which experience
shows to be impossible in State elementary schools. The sectarian
equilibrium in the management of the latter is so exceedingly delicate
that it can only be preserved by excluding from the lessons everything
but what is held in common by the most conservative and orthodox
sections of each evangelical denomination represented. On the other
hand, liberal clergymen, like Dr. Gibson, can often secure a great deal
of freedom to the teachers within their own communion. This must be
remembered in applying the following observations to the case of
municipal schools, and accordingly the warnings must be interpreted
more stringently. The italics are my own :—
They were confronted (said Dr. Gibson) with the difficult and delicate
question as to what must be the attitude of our Sunday-schools towards
this burning question of the day. It should be laid down as an axiom
to start with that only those who firmly believed in the divine authority of
both Testaments had the right to be Sunday-school teachers at all.
(Cheers.) A man who had no message of God to declare, but only doubts
of his own to ventilate, was quite out of place in the pulpit or in the chair
of a teacher. Those who were themselves wandering in mist and dark
ness were no proper guides for others—least of all for the children.
Most intelligent people, indeed, had doubts and difficulties in minor
matters, so they could not expect their teachers to be all-round
introduce into nearly all the Board schools under Mr. Forster’s Act precisely the
evangelical teaching given in common by very low Churchmen, Wesleyans, Presby
terians, Independents, and Baptists. So far was this carried that for some time the
Catechism approved by representatives of the Evangelical Free Churches was actually
used by the School Board for Liverpool in its schools.
1 The experience of Mr. F. J. Gould, the author of an excellent manual of
Ethical teaching, and formerly an assistant master under the London Board, is
decisive on this point. Being exceptionally conscientious, he could not reconcile it
with his sense of right to teach a “syllabus” implying doctrines which he no longer
believed. True, he was generously relieved of the duty while still retained on the
staff. But he became a marked man, and the promotion deserved by his uncommon
abilities was barred. He naturally left the profession. But he has since written
handbooks of moral instruction valued even by the orthodox clergy, and is prominent
as a leader in the beneficent movement for the reform of moral teaching in our
schools. This is the sort of man whom our “tests” involved in “simple Bible
teaching” banish to the ranks of aggressive secularism. He is at this present time of
writing the honoured “minister”—if I may use the title—of the Leicester Secularist
Society. If anyone supposes that Mr. Gould’s case is peculiar, except in regard to
his unusual punctiliousness of conscience—well, such an one does not know as much
us I do of the working of ‘ ‘ simple Bible teaching. ”
Testimony
Gibson,
�26
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
dogmatists, though even in the minor matters they should be careful not
to parade their doubts. But if their doubts touched the great question
whether God had really spoken to man and given himself for our salva
tion, then must the doubter be silent; or, if he must speak, let it be
under the banner of infidelity, not under the flag of Christ. (Hear, hear.)
The teacher must be honest. If a teacher believed that the Pentateuch
was a composite production, he must not teach his scholars that Moses
wrote it all as his own original composition. He took this as a simple
illustration, which was none the worse in that it suggested the remark
that a good Sunday-school teacher was likely to find something much
better to do than to occupy his time with a matter which was of no
spiritual value when there were so many urgent themes pressing for
attention. (Cheers.) A man must either teach what he believed or not
teach at all. (Hear, hear.) In the great majority of the lessons in the
Old Testament, as well as the New, there need be no occasion whatever
for raising any of these questions. One of the greatest dangers of our
time was making far too much of the letter of Scripture and far too little
of the spirit. What of those cases where a difficult question was sprung
upon them ? In that case he should consider it to be the teacher’s duty
to state what he considered to be the truth on the matter, but at the same
time to intimate that this was a subject on which good Christians differed,
and therefore it was a matter which was not essential, on which a person
might think either this way or that without serious harm. It should, in
fact, be treated as an open question. It was the dogmatism that did the
mischief on both sides. Suppose he had the story of Eden to deal with,
and had reached the record of the Fall, and a smart boy popped the
question, “Was that a real serpent, teacher ?” Now he maintained that,
in the present state of opinion among good critics, it would be a grave
fault to say either “yes ” or “ no.” He should answer : “ Some say yes,
others say no ; but it does not matter in the smallest degree to our great
lesson of to-day which of them is right.” But some might ask: “ If you
leave stick questions open, do you not unsettle the mind of the scholar ? ”
His answer was that their minds ought to be unsettled on questions which
were unsettled. (Hear, hear.) The settling of the mind on a question
which was unsettled was most mischievous and in the highest degree
dangerous for the future. Who could tell, for example, what dire mischief
was done in the childhood of Professor Huxley by those who succeeded
in settling in his mind that the Bible must teach science with the
rigorous position of the nineteenth century or be utterly discredited ?
Noone could read intelligently Huxley’s anti-Christian writings without
seeing that his fierce antagonism to Christianity was determined by the
fact that he was taught in his youth to regard as settled questions those
which all intelligent Christians now treated as open or as settled in the
opposite way. What had been rubbed into him from his earliest days
was the mischievous dogma that, if there was a solitary inaccuracy in
any reference which touched the domain of science in any of the books
which made up the Bible, it was impossible to accept the Scripture as
from God. If only the minds of men like Huxley and Tyndall had been
unsettled on the question of the relation between science and inspiration,
how different might the history of Christian thought have been in the
last fifty years. He did not say they would have become Christians ;
that was not the result of an intellectual process, but the work of the
Spirit. But they certainly would not have spent their strength in sowing
broadcast the seeds of unbelief, and if they had not accepted Christ
themselves they would, at all events, have looked with favour, and not
with deadly hostility, on the truth. In guiding the steps of the young
they should see to it first that they were leading them up, and not down,
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
27
and next that the steps were made easy to them, so that they might not
stumble as they climbed.1
It must be a very prejudiced mind which would fail to recognise and
respect the moral and intellectual courage shown in these words from
the occupant of an orthodox pulpit. But the conclusion of the report
from which the above is an extract is even more instructive:—
Professor Rendel Harris (University lecturer in Palaeography at
Cambridge) opened the discussion. He said he thought that Dr. Gibson
was a little in danger of sailing down the channel of “ no meaning ”
between “yes” and “no.” As to the serpent mentioned in the Eden
story, if he were asked he should at once say that it was mythical, and
should be treated as such. (Oh.) When they were dealing with the
educated sense of mankind they should not hesitate to speak out bravely
and face the question, and say : “ Man is older than we thought him to
be at one time.” He asked them to appeal from the smaller Bible to the
larger Bible of nature. They learnt from Genesis that Adam sewed
together fig leaves. Well, the only fact they got there was that primitive
man could sew. (Laughter.) If, however, they went into Kent’s Cavern
at Torquay, they would find the actual needle used by primitive man.
That was much more convincing than any story, and he pressed upon
them the importance of studying the Bible by the light of nature and not
nature by the light of the Bible.
During Professor Harris’s speech many present dissented from his
views. Having exhausted his time-limit, a vote was taken as to whether
he should continue his speech. Several delegates voted against the
motion, and Professor Harris said he had no intention to break the time
rule. (Laughter.)
The Rev. P. Williams (Derby) thought that Dr. Gibson ought to have
dwelt longer on some of the important points, and not have passed over
them by using catch phrases. They would like to have had a definition
of the “Divine Authority of Scripture” and the “human element in the
Bible.” They knew both were there, but still they wanted the matter
defined so that other people might know they were there. (Cheers.)
Dr. Gibson, in reply, said he was bound by a time-limit, and could not,
of course, deal with all questions in a single paper.
The six years elapsed since that Free Church Council was held have
not lessened, but, so far, have rather increased, the moral difficulties so
frankly acknowledged. Now, if in a conference of “ Free Churches,”
with no fear of ratepayers before their eyes, and no sacred “compromise”
to maintain, it is so difficult to obtain a sanction for honesty in teaching
the Bible, how much harder, indeed how impossible, must it be to secure
it for teachers in rate-supported schools whose directors represent a
carefully-schemed balance of sectarian jealousies ! The only possible
expedient for maintaining an unreal appearance of agreement is to
adhere strictly to such explanations as are not likely to be challenged by
any section of evangelical believers. A paradoxical state of things thus
arises. For, while the liberty of teaching is necessarily much narrower
1 Manchester Guardian, March 14th, 1901.
Professor
Rendel
Harris.
Aggrava
tion of the
difficulty in
Public Ele
mentary
Schools.
�28
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
in rate-supported schools than in Sunday-schools under the liberal
influence of clergymen like Dr. Monro Gibson, the area from which the
teachers are, or may be, drawn is much wider in the former schools than
in the latter, and nominally there is no imposition of any creed whatever.
The moral
Is this anomaly favourable to the honesty so earnestly insisted upon
in the above extract? Honest and self-respecting service in Board
schools under the present system is obviously made impossible to
consistent Rationalists—nay, more, it is impossible to young men
trained under liberal Christian influences and encouraged to accept the
results of modern research, so far as these may appear consistent with
the retention of belief in revelation. Suppose a young teacher entering
school life with the teaching of Professor Rendel Harris fresh in his
mind, and impressed with Dr. Gibson’s manly exhortation not to teach
what he does not believe. There is handed to him a “ syllabus ” of
religious instruction in which “ The Life of Abraham ” is mentioned
as a subject. To the younger children he may teach it as a story
without saying whether he thinks it historical or not. Yet he
cannot but be aware that his little pupils receive it as actual fact.
That it would be possible to teach it otherwise is known to him by his
ofoidTes- exPerience of the effect produced when he indulges them with a fairy
tament
tale such as Little Snowdrop or The Kins: of the Golden River. The
stones as
...
mythology children are as much interested in these stories as though he had
assured them they were actual facts. Yet they know quite well that it
is not so. The stories belong to that wonderland where historic
criticism never intrudes. But when he relates to them “The Life of
Abraham,” including the divine demand for a human sacrifice, he is
aware that they receive it as a statement of solemn fact, while at the
same time he does not believe that it is so.
With the higher standards, containing children from twelve to fifteen
years of age, the difficulty is much more serious. Encouraged by the
liberty allowed him by clergymen such as Dr. Monro Gibson, he has
yielded to arguments which convince him that the records of Abraham’s
life in Genesis are a composite production, showing an unsuccessful
attempt to piece together a consistent whole out of discordant materials.
Warned against dishonesty in teaching, he cannot tell his pupils that the
narrative is guaranteed by the authorship of Moses. If among his
bTty of’
scholars a prize-winner in the examinations of the Sunday School Union
answering should ask how it is that a precisely similar incident, arising out of a falsequestions. hood about a wife, is related twice of Abraham and once of Isaac, the same
king being concerned at a considerable interval of time in two of the
stories, what shall this honest follower of Dr. Monro Gibson say ? If
he says what in his own conviction is the truth, that the confusion arises
through the unskilful patching of different materials, all of which are
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
29
largely, if not wholly, mythical, there will be a disturbance at the local
Education Committee, and the teacher’s career will be at an end. If
he prevaricates, and says that it really does not matter, that in any case
the moral lesson is the same, it is very doubtful whether even this would
satisfy the weak brethren of the Education Authority; but it would
certainly be fatal to the teacher’s own self-respect.
These observations are not in the least invalidated by the suggestion
that the opinions adopted by the teacher are possibly incorrect. From
the point of view of religious equality in the nation’s schools, such a
suggestion is entirely inept. The consideration of importance is that
even Christian opinion, as represented by men like Dr. Monro Gibson,
has now got the length of encouraging young people not to feel guilty of
mortal sin if their reading convinces them of the composite and imperfect
nature of “ The Life of Abraham.” And yet if they act on the declara
tion above quoted, that “ a man must either teach what he believes or
cruel
not teach at all,” the second alternative alone is open to them. Even The form of
lest
religious
though they should have the genius of a Pestalozzi or a Froebel, they inequality.
are excluded from the nation’s schools, except on condition of open or
tacit hypocrisy. If this is not religious inequality, and inequality of a
shameful and odious kind, I do not know what can deserve the
name.
Readers who keep pace with the times in matters of opinion, but are
unfamiliar with the working of the elementary school system, may
pehaps be incredulous as to the existence of such a state of things as is
here described. Is not the teaching “unsectarian”? they ask. The
reply is that it is only so in the sense of teaching all that the
“Evangelical Free Churches” hold in common. “Is not Bible
teaching confined to necessary explanations in grammar, geography,
and archaeology?” No, it is not, as.is clearly proved by the adoption,
for a time, of the Free Church catechism by the Liverpool School
Board.1 By the Shrewsbury School Board the teaching of the Apostles,
Creed was ordered, and, by the courtesy of the Town Clerk, I am
informed it is to this day continued by the local Education Committee
under the Act of 1902.
But as this point of the amount of disputed dogma possible under
the Cowper-Temple clause is very important, and is also the subject of
very general misunderstanding, I will give more detailed evidence.
And as most of this was previously given in the former edition, I shall
first show cause why it cannot be considered out of date. Indeed, it
will never be out of date as long as the creed common to certain
1 It is no answer to say that the answers on sacraments and Church order were
omitted. Of course they were. But to Nonconformists they are unimportant, com
pared with the body of divinity contained in the other answers.
�3°
The Presi
dent of the
Board of
Education
on the
“ CowperTemple
Clause."
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
influential sects and rejected by all the rest of the nation continues to be
legally treated as “ undenominational.”
The Times of June 26th, 1907, gave a brief but significant report
of the reception on the previous day by Mr. McKenna, President of the
Board of Education, of a joint deputation of educational and Non
conformist bodies on the question of the enforcement of the CowperTemple clause.1 The deputation, which included the Rev. Dr.
Clifford and the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell, complained that the clause
was being interpreted in such an elastic manner that it practically gave
no protection to the evangelical Nonconformist conscience. I quote
the report of part of Mr. McKenna’s reply :—
He distinguished very considerably between what was the view of the
Board as to the law on this question and what its view was as to policv.
He had to deal with Acts of Parliament as they were. He did not
approve them, and he did not defend them. As regards the construction
which had been put upon the Cowper-Temple clause as to its value, he
was heartily in sympathy with everyone who had spoken. But when he
was asked whether they were to-day where they used to be between the
period 1879 and 1902, he was bound to answer that they were not. The
Act of 1902 made a very serious difference in the law. He had no
longer the power finally to determine whether or not the Cowper-Temple
clause was being contravened. He had been told that section 16 of the
Act of 1902 did not give him power to determine whether there had
been a breach of the clause, but, if there had been a breach, it gave him
power to enforce the law. There, again, it was a question of law ; it
was not a question for the layman. It was a question of the strict
construction of section 16 of the Act of 1902. Section 16 of the Act of
1902 enabled the Board of Education to compel an authority to fulfil
their duty by proceeding in the Courts of Law on an action of mandamus.
A local authority was under no obligation to compile a syllabus of
religious instruction at all, and was under no obligation to give religious
instruction in schools. Therefore, if a local authority did not compile a
syllabus or did not give religious instruction at all, they had not failed
to fulfil a duty. (Hear, hear.) He had no power under the Acts of
Parliament alone to enforce the Cowper-Temple clause by withholding
the grant. He could only deal with the Code at this moment as it
existed.
The rest of the reply dealt partly with a hypothetical future Bill,
and partly with the wrongs of religious Nonconformists in Preston, who,
it appears, suffer specially in that town the form of injustice which
Nonconformists themselves are quite ready to inflict on those who
believe less than they do. But what I have quoted is sufficient to
prove that, in the opinion of a Minister of Education with all sources
of official information at his command, the interpretation of the
Cowper-Temple clause, so far from being more just and rigorous, is
x I.e., Clause 14 of the Act of 1870 prohibiting in Board schools the use of any
“ religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular
denomination.”
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
3»
more favourable to sectarian dogma than when this essay first appeared.
I am perfectly justified, therefore, in once more calling attention to
the report of the Royal Commission on Education issued in 1888.
And I may say that not one fact adduced by me in 1901 has been
disputed.
Among a great variety of interesting information the Report
included an account of the religious instruction given in the elementary
schools. I learn from this Report that Pulliblank’s Teachers' Handbook
io the Bible and Mr. M. F. Lloyd’s Abridged Bible Catechism were
being used in Board schools with the apparent approval of the
Education Department. This fact shows what is meant by “unsec
tarian ” teaching. Of Mr. Pulliblank’s book I desire to say no more
than that it assumes throughout the literal historical accuracy of the
Old Testament, even of the early chapters of Genesis. Mr. Lloyd’s
Catechism, on the other hand, is an ingenious scheme to set forth the
whole evangelical doctrine of the plan of salvation by contriving to
furnish in the exact words of the Bible the answers to a number of
leading questions. Thus, to the question, “ What promise of a
Saviour was made to our first parents?” the answer is: “I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her
seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” It is
unnecessary to quote further. The assumption that the serpent-myth
is actual history, that the serpent was Satan and the seed Christ,
sufficiently shows how the plea of the Bible, and the Bible alone, may
be made to support the teaching under the name of unsectarian
religion, of beliefs abandoned by educated people and condemned by the
spirit of the age. This should be borne in mind when we note the
selections of Scripture made by School Boards and their successors for
the teaching of children.
It appears that at the date of the Report—and I can find no
evidence of any change—the Bible narratives of the Creation, of the
Fall, of the Flood, and of Noah’s exploits were considered to be
specially suitable for the moral instruction of infants. 'They were
prescribed for this purpose by the School Boards for Bolton, Manchester,
Rochdale, Newport, with St. Moollos, and many others. In Liverpool
the Book of Genesis was taken for the first year’s course; but whether
that included babies docs not clearly appear. The School Board for
London does not seem to have regarded those narratives as milk for
babes, and its selections were much above the ordinary level. But in
its prescription of the “lives” of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as
subjects for study, it certainly intended that they should be treated as
historical, and this all teachers understand. The same remark may be
made wherever a particular book or section of Scripture is prescribed
Illustration
of “ simple
Bible teach
ing' ” under
the C.-T.
Clause.
�32
Lessons in
Massacre.
Divine im
morality.
The case of
the New
Testament.
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
by this or any other Board. Thus, under the Wanstead Board, the
higher standards were set to study Joshua and Judges. It would be
difficult to find in all literature two books more full of bloodshed,
murder, massacre, and savagery. I can appreciate as well as anyone
the gleams of a higher life that flash from their pages here and there.
And even the most shocking pictures they give of the ancient alliance
between superstition and cruelty might conceivably be used by a
teacher entrusted with perfect “ liberty of prophesying ” to illustrate
the depths out of which the evolution of reason and morality has
raised us. But that is not allowed to municipal school teachers any
more than to “sectarian” teachers. Indeed, the former are more
tightly bound by the “ Compromise.” The Book says that God over
threw the walls of Jericho by a miracle, and that by his express and
particular command the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in
the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and
ass, with the edge of the sword.” Now, if any teacher were to tell his
pupils that the massacre might be historical, but that the allegation of
a divine command was clearly false, there would undoubtedly be trouble
at the next Education Committee meeting, and probably at many others
to follow.
The same may be said of the slaughter of Achan and his family, of
the murder of the five kings at Makkedah, of the assassination of
Eglon, of the treachery to Sisera, and a dozen other sanguinary deeds
which, in reading Joshua and Judges, children are taught to regard as
excepted by divine command from ordinary rules of morality. How
can any educated man or woman read these sanguinary legends with
their innocent pupils without hastening to assure the children that these
are no words of God ? It is not a case in which silence can appease
the conscience. The absence of explanation or denial confirms the
misbelief in young hearts that are forming their faith for life. If the
truth cannot be told, at least let such horrible narratives be banished
from the schools.1
In dealing with the New Testament it might be thought that the
course is clearer. When we find selections from the life of Christ, or
the story of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, ordered to be taught,
or the Acts, or St. Paul’s Epistles, it might be thought that here at least
the plan of “ unsectarian ” instruction can meet with no difficulty. I
am not so sure of that. It is notorious that what is called “the Higher
1 I do not speak without experience. I taught Bible classes for many years. I
don’t think I ever took the Book of Joshua. But I did try to make Hebrew folklore
interesting. I remember I was specially pleased with the written reproduction, by a
boy of twelve, of my story of the Deluge. He concluded thus : “ All this sounds very
terrible ; but it would be still more terrible if it were true.”
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
33
Criticism” has no more spared the New Testament than the Old.
Moreover, the acceptance of the results of that criticism is not confined
to “Secularist” lecturers, nor even to Unitarians. We have only to
glance at the list of contributors to the new Encyclopedia Biblica, and
at the opinions they support, to see that many scholarly Churchmen
have entirely abandoned the literal truth of New Testament history,
together with the authenticity of several epistles.
I do not urge their ecclesiastical authority as conclusive against the
Bible-instruction rate. But at least it helps to refute the arrogant
assumption of Nonconformist perverts and others that School-board
religion represents the views of all but an eccentric and negligible
group of ratepayers. The rational desire to treat the New as well as
the Old Testament like any other book is now supported by clergymen
of the Church of England who repudiate even a literal belief in the
physical resurrection of Christ. No one with an eye for the signs of
this time can doubt that these clergymen represent the theology of the
future. Nevertheless, any teacher who is now of that opinion can only
gain employment in a public elementary school on condition of playing
the hypocrite. Let it be clearly understood that what I am urging is
not the permission to teach such opinions in the schools, but only the
exclusion of a subject of instruction which, in the present chaotic
condition of belief, imposes on many of the best candidates for the
office of teacher the cruel alternative of insincerity or proscription.
If it be asked how such a paradoxical state of things as above
described can have been established in the entire absence of any
authoritative “ creed or formulary,” the explanation lies, as previously
explained,1 in the great renunciation of principle by Nonconformists in
1870. In consequence of that and the great Smith compromise the
creed of School Boards and of the later committees came to be, like the
creed of the Free Churches, the consensus, undefined in words, but
very rigid in substance, of the supposed opinions of the majority. “ And
why not?” cry some. “Surely true democracy consists in the rule of
the majority.” Well, in our time the democracy stands for Caesar.
And Nonconformists before 1870 used to be very eloquent on a certain
text in the Gospels reserving “the things of God” from Caesar’s control.
They, too, perhaps, are touched by the rationalism of the age, and now
explain that text away. But they cannot explain away facts; and it is
surely a shameful fact that, however clearly a young man is marked out
as a born teacher, his adhesion to the views of Robertson Smith,
Driver, and Cheyne on the Old Testament, and of Dr. Abbott or
Professor Schmiedel on the Gospels, excludes him from the freedom of
the profession except on one condition—that he shall speak or act a lie.
1 Tp. 16, 17, ante.
D
�V.
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
On July 15th, 1907, there appeared in the Times an interesting and
impressive letter from Dr. T. J. Macnamara, M.P. This letter was
evoked by Mr. A. J. Balfour’s attack' on the new regulations governing
the admission of students to residential training colleges—an attack
supported by many fierce articles in the ecclesiastical press. To the
regulations themselves I have already referred in the Preface to this
edition. But the letter made special reference to the demoralising
effect of theological tests, and certain words which I shall quote from it
may very appropriately open the argument of this chapter. Thus, after
explaining how a “ King’s Scholarship ” gives the successful candidate
“a considerable Government grant in aid of a course of college training,”
Dr. Macnamara proceeded :—
Roughly, about 5,000 young people win this training “scholarship”
year by year ; but, when they seek to utilise it at a residential training
college, they find that about 4,300 of the 5,000 residential places open to
them are strictly reserved for students who are willing—over and above
their success in the Government examination—to subscribe to a pretty
rigid denominational test. As a matter of fact, the majority of these
4,300 residential places are open only to members of the Established
Church. What is the result ? If the student be a Nonconformist, he
must take a very high place indeed in the Government examination if
he is to secure admission to one of the very few undenominational
residential colleges. Because not only are the places open to him very
few, but they are open also to members of the Church of England.
Failing to secure entrance to an undenominational college, he telegraphs
right and left to the other training colleges, and is promptly told that he
will be admitted with pleasure if he is a member of the Church of
England. A number of young people, to my certain knowledge, succumb
to the temptation, and are admitted to the Church solely for the purpose
of utilising their dearly won Government "'scholarship.” Others very
properly decline to conform, and go on as ex-pupil teachers, and, having
been at this critical stage thrown off the track, never afterwards succeed
in completing the course for the teachers’ certificate. The grievous
hardship of all this is the fact that the Church colleges take in year after
year students who are far less meritorious and able than many of those
who are shut out. This is not only unfair to the apprentice ; it devotes
the State grant to the training of inferior material.
The italics are, of course, my own, and are intended to mark the
moral considerations with which I am about to deal. For, notwith
standing the idiosyncrasies of exceptional latitudinarians, ordinary
people, I believe, still regard a profession of faith as a moral or an
34
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
35
immoral act according as it is made truly or falsely. Now, I suppose,
evangelical Nonconformists, almost without exception, have heartily
approved the above letter. For very many of them have known cases
of bright boys and girls, devoted Sunday scholars and welcome additions
to Church membership, who have been subjected to precisely the
temptation described in the letter. News of their passing the King’s
Scholarship examination was eagerly welcomed by the chapel circle,
and a happy career was predicted for them in which “simple Bible
teaching,” unpolluted by catechism or formulary, was to be a con
spicuous feature.
Then came the check, the change, the fall.
For, though they had done very well in the examination, their success
was not so exceptional as to enable them to command one of the very
small number of places available in Nonconformist or undenomina
tional colleges. But their success had been quite sufficient to make
them desirable candidates elsewhere. And as the vast majority of
available places were elsewhere, the painful alternative arose of taking
a permanently inferior standing as teachers or of changing their profes
sion of faith. Dr. Macnamara deals very gently with the occasional or
perhaps frequent result. But, he says, “a number of young people, to
my certain knowledge, succumb to the temptation.” He seems to be
paraphrasing a very old account of the same transition : “ They give up
all religion and go to church.” That is not my judgment. Heaven
forbid! But if we talk of “ succumbing to temptation,” it is implied
that there is something morally wrong. And so, no doubt, thought the
pastors and the deacons and the Sunday-school superintendents of the
various chapels to which these perverts had belonged.
But I can imagine—nay, I have known—strictly analogous cases
which the same religious people would not see at all in the same light.
For in these days of “New Theology” and “re-statements” of doctrine
there is an ever-increasing number of young people with the teacher’s
gift and enthusiasm who do not, and cannot if they are to be true to
themselves, pretend to accept that view of the Bible which is implied or
presupposed in what is called “ simple Bible teaching.” That is, there
are very few narratives of either the Old or the New Testament which
they can conscientiously teach as historic fact; and very much of the
morality they think to be interesting rather as a record of ethical evolu
tion than as “ revelation.” Now, the crisis in the moral and spiritual
development of such young people may not occur so early as the time
of the King’s scholarship examination. Up to that period they have
accepted, almost as a matter of course, the Bible as “the word of God,”
and as an infallible revelation. But either towards the close of their
- college career or afterwards the rational spirit, which at the present day
A Moral
dilemma.
�36
Are the
rights of
conscience a
monopoly of
the advo
cates of
“ simple
Bible
teaching” ?
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
is more or less immanent in all forms of literature and learning, stirs in
them a questioning mood. They read Mr. R. J. Campbell’s New
Theology, and, their appetite for hitherto forbidden knowledge being
quickened, they look up the Encyclopedia Biblica in a public library,
and next are led to translations of Haeckel’s Riddle of the Universe; and
then, with a hunger for more spiritual food, they apply to the public
library again for the works of the various Anglican and Presbyterian
divines who have re-stated in once startling, but now familiar, forms the
theory of revelation.
The end of it is that at a period when they are expecting to become
head teachers they find that their views of both the Old and the New
Testament have so fundamentally changed that they can no longer give
“ simple Bible teaching ” with sincerity. They cannot, without doing
violence to their convictions, teach as fact “ the life of Abraham ” or
of Jacob as set down in the syllabus. They cannot sincerely teach the
Ten Commandments as laws written by the finger of God, because they
are now quite sure that they are nothing of the kind. Even the Gospels
they now regard as, to a large extent, legendary; and they are as certain
as they can be of anything that the Fourth Gospel was not written by
Zebedee’s son. What are they to do ? If they frankly avow their
position, they will probably be treated with courtesy, and something will
be said in praise of their honesty. But they will soon experience the
bitter truth uttered by Juvenal: “Probitas laudatur et alget.” For they
will be relieved of giving Scripture instruction, and their prospects of
promotion permanently barred.
It would be trifling with common sense and notorious facts to
pretend ignorance that there are large numbers of young teachers, both
men and women, in that very position at the present time. Here, then,
is a moral dilemma precisely analogous to that sympathetically described
in Dr. Macnamara’s letter to the Times. For these young men and
women must either prematurely blight their prospects of promotion or
they must set their teeth and put a strain on conscience such as will be
a life-long burden. But where now is the Nonconformist sympathy so
eagerly extended to the young chapel-folk whom Dr. Macnamara
described as “ succumbing to the temptation ” to go over to the
Church ? I am afraid it is sadly lacking. But why ? Surely the two
cases are on all fours in principle. Unless, indeed, Nonconformists
would draw the line at their own “ simple Bible ” views, and maintain
that, while it is perfectly right to doubt or deny any other religion, it is
wicked to doubt or deny theirs. One almost despairs of getting even
good and kindly and otherwise fair-minded people to see straight where
the Bible is concerned.
But sometimes, when the plainest proof of injustice fails of access to
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
37
the conscience through the ear, the ugly consequences of the wrong
may become so repulsive as to enforce conviction. And if I can only
show what the consequences are in this case both to teachers and
children, I do not despair of success. Indeed, I venture to think that,
if Dr. Macnamara could only realise how the moral difficulty he has
pointed out is necessarily involved in the retention of the Bible in
school, he would refuse to endorse any new Education Bill that should
transgress beyond secular lines.
The last words of the preceding chapter may by some be thought
too strong. But I shall establish their literal truth. It will be remem
bered that, in introducing the subject of the religious disabilities set up
by School Boards, and continued by local Education Authorities under
the Act of 1892, I have carefully refrained from asserting that the
barriers are absolutely impassable. All I allege is that the tests implied,
though not avowed, exclude Rationalists, whether Christian or non
Christian, from “ honest and self-respecting service as teachers in the
nation’s schools.” But they are, of course, not excluded from service
of a different kind. As an illustration of the sort of service which
latitudinarians or heretics are allowed to give, take the following extract
from a letter printed in Democracy^ of February 23rd, 1901. The
occasion of it was a previous letter from a Board-school teacher, com
plaining of the odious task of teaching what he did not believe.
Whereupon “Another Board-School Teacher” addressed the editor
thus :—
Sir,—The state of feeling disclosed by the remark of the “ Board-school
Licensed
hypocrisy.
Teacher” anent the pressure put upon him to teach “ Scripture” against
his wish is, 1 am afraid, common to many others of that class of the
community. One docs lose a certain amount of self-respect in standing
before a class and teaching for truth what one believes to be false. But
under somewhat similar circumstances I ask myself: Why be honest ?
Why trouble at all about the matter ? The Scripture lessons occupy
little time, after all, and the harm done cannot amount to much. In
view of the facts that all the work done in school may be described as
an attempt to enable the children to conform to the canons of Christian
or commercial morality (sic), and that no degree of conformity to those
of either cult will abate the ills or conduce to the welfare of humanity,
I feel that more harm is done in the ordinary school work than in the
time set apart for religious instruction. But one must get a living
somehow ; so I, personally, comply with the terms of my agreement
with my employers, and let conscience go hang.
I will not do any body of teachers the injustice of accepting this
gentleman as a fair representative of their moral tone. But my own
experience, and a fairly extensive intercourse with them during many
years, assures me that the first sentence in the above extract is
substantially correct. The discontent, however, is caused not by “ the
1 Since become The Ethical World.
Significance
of the above
letter.
�38
A dangerous position.
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
pressure put upon them to teach ‘Scripture,’” but by the necessity
imposed upon them to teach it in a fashion inconsistent with their own
convictions. I will undertake to say that, if permission to teach
honestly what they believe about the Bible were given to school
teachers, three-fourths of them, at the very least, would tell the children
that the greater part of the Hexateuch must be regarded in the same
light as a series of fairy tales ; that the story of Jonah is a moral fable,
very impressive in its way, but probably destitute of even a basis of
fact; that the Book of Daniel is a romance, and that of Esther a
political apologue. I believe, also, that, if they dared, the same propor
tion of teachers would treat all the miracles of the Old Testament as
originating in the imagination of Jewish patriots and poets, rather than
in actual fact. Even if I put the proportion numerically too high, the
most sanguine believer in the evangelical fervour inspired by our
training colleges must surely feel that the letter above quoted is
indicative of considerable mental unrest. Let the extent of Rationalism
among teachers be minimised to the utmost possible degree consistent
with notorious facts, still it will remain true that a large number are
forced into teaching what they do not believe.
Now, this is a sort of fact of which the moral import is not dependent
on statistics. If only twenty per cent, of the men and women who stand
before their classes with the life of Abraham, or the account of the
Deluge, or the story of the Virgin Birth, or of the Resurrection, m their
hands as the basis of moral instruction, hold these parts of the Bible to
be unhistorical, while they are obliged to treat them as solemn facts, it
seems too like taking “ a lie in their right hand ” for the inculcation of
truth. The misdirected satire of Jean Ingelow in ridiculing a theory of
spiritual evolution which she did not understand would be much more
applicable to the case of these teachers :—
Gracious deceivers who have lifted us
Out of the slough where passed our unknown youth ;
Beneficent liars who have gifted us
With sacred love of truth.
Human nature is too complex and unfathomable to allow of any
sweeping affirmation of demoralising consequences in such a case. I
was once asked by one of the best men I ever knew, himself an
Anglican clergyman, why I did not seek orders in the Established
Church. I replied that “ for one reason I had never, up to that
moment, seen any creed that I could sign.” “ Indeed !” he responded ;
“never seen the creed you could sign, hav’n’t you ? Well, now, / have
never seen the creed I couldn’t sign.” Making all allowance for my
friend’s love of paradox, I yet could not but feel that between his notion
of responsibility for assenting to a creed and mine there was an
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
39
impassable difference. Yet I knew him to be in all other relations a
man of unimpeachable honour and courageously truthful.1 I should be
very loth, therefore, to deny the possibility that analogous instances, of
personal paradox may be found among teachers who believe one thing
and teach another. But the letter I have quoted above is sufficient
proof that the position is a dangerous one.
Let it be granted that the moral degeneracy exhibited in that letter ofthe
is an extreme and exceptional instance of the working of the system. teachers,
Let it further be conceded that at the other end of the scale there are
a number of sincere and devout Evangelical teachers whose Biblical
creed is an inspiration to them. There will remain the large majority
who belong neither to one class nor to the other. Pledged to no creed,
possessed of culture enough to appreciate the revolution in educated
opinion on the origins and authority of the Bible, they yet feel no
special impulse to any independent study of such questions, and
ordinary prudence warns them against any precipitancy in adopting
ideas which would create a daily consciousness of discord between duty
and conviction. The result is an attitude of conventional acquiescence
which guards their mental comfort, but empties their Scriptural teaching
of all reality. Some of the more studious among them, while shy of
reading distinctly Rationalistic books, find much edification in the
works of a contemporary school which suggest that after all there is
nothing exactly true, and it does not much matter. Mr. A. J. Balfour’s
elegant disquisition on the duty of believing with the majority, Professor
Percy Gardner’s charming explanation in his Exploratio Evangeltca of
the possibility that a creed may be both true and false at the same
time, have great attractions for honest men in such circumstances.
Pretending to their own consciences to adopt, though without legitimate
authority or open avowal, a freedom which I have above suggested as
their due if they are to teach the Bible at all, they tell the stories of the
Old Testament without any pretence of discriminating fact from fiction
even in their own minds. What does it matter ? they ask. If they
were telling the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, they would not feel
it necessary to warn their infant hearers that beans do not, as a rule,
produce stalks reaching up to heaven. The attitude of the child’s mind
towards such a narrative is, they well know, neither that of belief nor
that of unbelief. It is simply that of interest and wonder at an unfold
ing vision. Why should the case be different with the story of Eve and
the Serpent ?
1 There can be no harm now in stating that the clergyman was the late Rev. John
Rodgers, Vicar of St. Thomas Charterhouse—not “hang theology Rogers,” but his
successor in that cure—and for some time Vice-Chairman of the School Board for
London. Of his courage various education campaigns in London afforded ample
proof.
�40
The moral
difficulty is
that Bible
History is
tacitly
accepted in
school as
divine and
infallible.
MORA L EFFECT ON TEA CIIERS
It is not for me to answer that question. The point of my whole
argument is that, if Hebrew myth or legend is to be treated at all in
State schools, they should be treated precisely in that manner. What
I complain of is that they are not so treated, but rather as parts of a
divine and infallible history. And the position is such that they cannot
be otherwise treated, unless the children under instruction are expressly
told so. This would be quite possible in Sunday-schools, even of
orthodox churches, if liberal influences like those of Dr. Monro Gibson
or Professor Rendel Harris happened to prevail there. But in no
Board school is it at all possible, because the attempt would lead to
theological discussion on the Board, and revive the religious difficulty
in its most obnoxious form. The result is that teachers have to treat
as solemn fact every Hebrew legend or impossible miracle read as a
Scripture lesson. Those whom I have described above as receptive of
modern dissolving views, wherein historic falsehood shades off into
spiritual truth, may flatter themselves that they are only giving a moral
lesson through a parable. But the illusion is dissipated the moment
that any intelligent pupil asks such critical questions as occur to
precocious children. “ Mother,” asked a four-year-old enfant terrible
whom I once knew, “ what does God sit down on when he’s tired ? ”
“ O, my dear,” said the mother, “ God is never tired.” “ But,” retorted
the child, “you said he rested on the seventh day.”
Now, critical questions of children are of no disadvantage whatever,
if suggested by the inconsistencies of an avowed parable or fable. But
any question of the kind may rudely dispel the rationalising teacher’s
notion that he can use Hebrew myths as he uses JEsop’s Fables with
out letting his pupils know it. If it be said that as a matter of fact such
questions are rarely or never asked in school, so much the worse for the
system. For the absence of any such sign of intelligent interest shows
that the whole lesson is regarded as a ceremonial observance having no
relation to realities. Besides, there are many cases in which an intel
ligent and rational teacher, who was really free, would anticipate such
questions for the sake of the spiritual impression he is seeking to make.
If, for instance, he is using the infatuated Pharaoh of the Exodus as a
type of earthly power, scornful of spiritual verities, and eventually
crushed by a might that it cannot understand, he must needs deny the
literal truth of the assertion that “ God hardened Pharaoh’s heart ” ; or,
otherwise, all modern analogies fail. To explain the arrogant contempt
of George III. and his court for the new-born American patriotism, by
asserting that God hardened that monarch’s heart, would not be
tolerated even by literal believers of what is said about Pharaoh. It
is, therefore, impossible for the teacher to make any obviously fair
application of the ancient example to the modern instance.
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
41
Records
Take, again, the alleged command given by Jahweh to Moses, early of
Hebrew
Joshua, and Israel at large to smite the nations of old Palestine, and savagery.
“utterly to destroy them,” to “ make no covenant with them, nor show
mercy unto them.” Either this command is accepted as historical or it
is not. In the former case the teacher has an unenviable task in
“justifying the ways of God to men.” In the latter case a conscientious
teacher would almost give all his hopes of preferment to be allowed to
say that the statement was a false and blasphemous pretence of the
Israelites. But even here the recipients of dissolving views may find an
issue. It may not be true that any personal Deity gave such a
command. Yet the doctrine of the gradual selection of higher races
through the survival of the fittest in each generation’s struggle for life
is, in one form or another, generally accepted; and, probably, the
application of such a doctrine to the resettlement of ancient Palestine
would not stir up “ the religious difficulty ” even on School Boards.
But such an interpretation is estopped by the conditions under which
the lesson is given. The “ compromise ” involves a tacit undertaking
to assume, if not the infallibility, at least the historical accuracy, of the
Bible, especially where it narrates the successive steps in the progress
of the alleged revelation to which all the compromising sects are at least
officially committed. One of those steps is the establishment of the
chosen people in Palestine, and the suppression of the earlier inhabitants
by order of a personal divine ruler in order to make room for the former.
This divine ruler speaks with human speech, expresses emotions of anger
and jealousy indistinguishable from human feeling. He issues orders
like an earthly sovereign who has a policy of conquest to carry out. It
is not Fate, or the Unknowable, who is here acting and speaking. It
is an intensely personal Being, whose mercy elsewhere is said to endure
for ever, and whose “ compassions fail not.” How is it possible for any
honest Christian, with the words of Jesus murmuring in his heart, to tell
children that such a Being ordered these massacres? Yet no Elemen
tary schoolmaster would be supported by his Committee in treating as
fictitious the terrible command above-mentioned.1
What reality can there be in the teaching of the Bible under such In such a
case
limitations by any man or woman touched by the spirit of the age ? “ simple
Bible
The possibility of simplicity and straightforwardness is confined to that teaching ”
needs
small minority of teachers who still hold the whole Bible to be literally devout
true. Unconscious of any incongruity between modern thought and simpletons
as teachers.
the “ plan of salvation ” taught to them in their childhood, they are also
1 Of course, this general assertion, based on nearly forty years’ experience, must be
taken for what it is worth. But it is to be remembered that even school managers,
who themselves disbelieve any such divine command, would fear the “talk” of the
neighbourhood and possible offence to religious ministers.
�42
The intoler
able strain
on enlight
ened
teachers.
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
untroubled by any inconsistency between Old Testament fables and the
spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. They tell, with such fervour as a
cooling faith allows, of man’s first disobedience, of the curse thereby
entailed on all posterity, and of the elaborate process of miracle and
prophecy, of type and sacrifice, of commandments and law and ceremony,
by which a divine Being laboriously prepared the coming of the sacred
victim whose death and resurrection open the Kingdom of Heaven to
all believers. Such a course of instruction amid all the array of theo
logical dreams it unfolds has, undoubtedly, lucid intervals in which
moving appeals may be made to the heart. The loss of Eden, the
passion of Cain, the aspirations of Enoch, the faith of Abraham, the
story of Joseph, David’s heart-broken sorrow for Absalom—all, even
when taken literally, give the opportunity of contrasting the meanness of
self-will with loyalty of soul to a divine ideal. But the possibility of this
does'not in the least palliate the wrong spoken of in previous pages, the
injustice done to dissenting ratepayers and less orthodox teachers who
object to do evil that good may come. They protest against being made
aiders and abettors in the perpetuation of what they think falsehood,
even though some moral truths may occasionally glimmer through it.
But, outside the minority who can with their whole hearts “teach the
Bible ” in the sense intended by “ the compromise,” teachers are exposed
to degrees of strain varying from the abject surrender to hypocrisy
quoted above, to casuistical ingenuities and non-natural interpretation
of obvious duty. “ Obvious duty ” because neither by authority of
ratepayers, nor by orders of a School Board, nor even at the request-of
parents, is any man justified in teaching to his pupils as truth what he
himself believes to be a lie. “ Parable,” “ allegory,” “ fable,” and such
like, are not the words to describe the method of one who himself accepts
a Bible story in one sense and takes care that the children shall under
stand him in another. To talk about a dispensation of “ illusion ” is right
enough when we are groping after an increasing purpose running through
the ages of faith. In those times everyone believed the illusion, and
there was no dishonesty. But when a man tells of a universal deluge or
of the overthrow of Jericho’s walls by sound of trumpet, or of Joshua’s
arrest of the sun, in such a manner as to make the impression that he
believes them as facts when he does not believe them, this is not an
economy of illusion ; it is a lie—or at least if would be so to any
unsophisticated conscience,
�VI.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
At the risk of needless reiteration, I must again disclaim any inclination
to deny the educational value of the Bible, if properly used. The ques
tion here raised is, What has actually been the ethical value of the Bible
as taught under the conditions already described ? After thirty-seven
years of daily text-grinding in the people’s schools, or rather after a
hundred years of it if we take into consideration the previous work of
voluntary associations, the question of Browning’s Pope seems very
pertinent:—
“Well, is the thing we see salvation ?”
Is the language in our streets much purer or less profane and coarse
than it was in 1870 ?
More than one local Council, in grief at the coarse, foul, and
disgusting words constantly used in its streets, has desired the law to be
strengthened. We have had practically universal and professedly com
pulsory education for nearly six generations of school children1—and
yet we have to ask the magistrates to supplement the moral work of the
schoolmaster in a matter like this. The following paragraph from the
Westminster Gazette, of September 6th, 1901, is very suggestive, and
unfortunately is not yet irrelevant to present manners. The italics are
my own :—
We would gladly see the resolution passed by the East Ham Council
to stop offensive language on tram-cars adopted by other local autho
rities. The use of language of this sort is disagreeable enough to many,
wherever heard ; it is particularly so on public conveyances where other
passengers are compelled to listen to it. The strange thing is that those
who indulge in it are, as a rule, quite unconscious of giving any cause of
offence. They are so accustomed among their fellows to express them
selves in such a way that they go on doing so wherever they may be.
It will, no doubt, be possible to curb the nuisance by measures of the
kind referred to ; but, as the use of objectionable language anywhere is
an offence at law, it might be well, perhaps, if the law were put in
motion more frequently than it is. Persons passing along the streets
often have their ears assailed with foul expressions, which a few prosecu
tions might make less common.
Is it not a scandal that elementary schools should be so powerless to
mould the manners of children who have attended them for six, eight,
1 For the greater part of the period compulsory attendance has begun at five years
of age and ended after thirteen.
43
The voca
bulary of
the streets.
�44
I ack of
moral inspi
ration in
the schools.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
or ten years?1 All these foul-mouthed people, who “are so accus
tomed among their fellows to express themselves in such a way,” have
passed through some elementary school in which the Bible, or even the
Catechism, has been taught, and “ explanations have been given there
from in the principles of the Christian religion and morality.” And yet
they have not been saved from coarseness, profanity, and indecency in
speech.
Is the effect of cheap literature quite what we hoped and expected ?
When opening our first Board schools, did we forebode that in the
twentieth century the cry of “All the winners ” would sell more papers
than the most thrilling announcements of scientific or archaeological
discovery, or even of the most exciting political events ? If the English
translation of the Bible is, as some incongruously say, a “ British
classic,” should not its incessant reading have raised the intellectual
tone of the people above the level where it remains ? In our incessant
whining for clumsy methods of force to put down betting, bribery, and
impurity, is there not a manifest despair of moral remedies? Yet I
should not be at all surprised to find that the hysterical people who
continually write letters to the Press urging methods of barbarism, such
as the “ cat,” as infallible moral restoratives, have no less fervently
throughout their lives insisted on Bible drill. And when this con
spicuously fails, the natural conclusion, that there must have been some
lack of moral inspiration in the method, does not seem to occur to
them. The fine old Christian saying that “ force is not God’s way ”2
loses its significance when the Bible becomes a fetish; and “ Bible and
beer ” has to be supplemented by Bible and birch.
The good humour of an English mob is proverbial, and was a
character acquired long before “ simple Bible teaching,” under the
Cowper-Temple clause, was invented. But such good humour does
not prevent outbreaks of rudeness, coarseness, and disregard for the
rights of others which here and there make Bank Holidays odious.
Now, if moral training in public Elementary schools is good for any
thing, it ought surely to secure compliance with the precept, “ All things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them.”
But the constant recurrence of cases in which private parks, by courtesy
1 Take, for instance, the objectionable and even dangerous habit of promiscuous
and continual spitting. Of late public authorities have been obliged, on hygienic
grounds, to interfere. But until doctors decided that disease may be spread thereby,
mere decency had no chance of consideration. I did my humble best as Board
School manager in London from 1871 onwards to secure attention to the subject, but
in vain. Yet if morals include “ manners,” as surely they ought, the doctors should
have been anticipated by the teachers.
2 “ Bia yap ou irphaevri r<p Gecp.” It occurs in the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus
of uncertain but very early date (cap. vii.), and also in Irenaeus (contra Hcereses, lib.
iv., cap. xxxvii. 1).
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
45
opened to the public, have had to be closed because of the abuse of
such courtesy, proves that the lesson has not been successfully
impressed.1
I gladly acknowledge that juvenile crime, in the sense of offences
punished by sentence of magistrates or judges, has largely diminished.
But this has been brought about by improvements in the law rather
than in juvenile manners. Children who would, in a more barbarous
though recent age, have been sent to prison are now sent to Industrial
schools or Reformatories. That, however, is quite consistent with a
persistently low standard of juvenile morality, and of this there is too
much evidence.
Of such evidence I will give a specimen forced upon my attention An illustra
tive case.
on the very day when these lines are penned. Its value must, of course,
depend on the extent to which it corresponds with the experience of my
readers. But I scarcely think that many will say that it is an unusual
case. This morning, then (July, 1907), I was one of a bench of magis
trates before whom eight boys, of ages varying from twelve to seventeen,
were accused, some of them of stealing, and others of malicious damage,
involving, as was proved, serious danger to human life. The little
robbers had made a raid on certain “penny-in-the-slot” machines, by
means of tin discs, which, as it turned out, worked quite as well as the
penny with His Majesty’s image and superscription. Some of us
thought—and many may share our opinion—that machines making
theft so easy constitute an unfair temptation to our child citizens under
our present feeble and futile systems of moral training. But perhaps I
was alone in thinking that it was the moral training quite as much as this
imperfect “ penny-in-the-slot ” system that was to blame. For, what
ever may be the attractions of illicit chocolates and cigarettes, boys
from twelve to seventeen years old ought to have—and would have
under efficient moral training—sufficient feeling of the meanness of theft
and of its disastrous consequences to social order to enable them to
resist.
There were also three accusations of malicious damage, one of the
accused youngsters being a defendant also in the previous case. In a
neighbouring mountain quarry the stones are run down tramways having
an incline steeper than a high-pitched roof. Now, on a Saturday half
holiday, when there was no one about, these adventurous boys, finding
1 In the former edition I gave certain then recent and notorious instances of the
kind, in one of which two Sunday-school teachers in charge of a children’s excursion
were concerned. I have no reason to believe that the evil is much abated since then.
And I have had special opportunities during these years of not'.ng how vain are the
efforts of the, Selboine Society to preserve picturesque places of resort from desecration.
Picnickers seem to imagine that it is not of the least consequence in what state of
filthy untidiness they leave nature’s beauties.
�46
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
a waggon securely “scotched” at the top of one of these steep
The moral
instruction
of such
juveniles,
tramways, removed the “ scotch ” and started the waggon off. It was
good fun, no doubt; but, as several deaths have occurred through
incautious trespassing on these tramways, it was highly perilous fun,
and the boys were quite old enough to know it. Compared with this
danger to life, it seemed to me that the smashing of the company’s
waggon was trivial. In old times these peccant children would have
been sent to swell the number of juvenile criminals. But, of course, no
such consequence followed in this case; and as the same just and
rational leniency is now exercised in thousands of similar cases, this
amply accounts for the apparently satisfactory change in the statistics of
juvenile crime. Yet is it so satisfactory when we learn the real reason
of the change? These latter frolicking boys, though accused of
“ malicious damage,” were, I believe, not capable of malignity. No;
but neither they nor the pilferers had such sense as they ought to have
had at their age of their duty to their neighbour, or of their moral
relations to the community which assures their safety and their prospects
in life. Now, if anyone thinks this is too much to expect from boys of
twelve to seventeen, let him watch them at their games of “ marbles,”
or follow them to the cricket-field and the football-ground. There he
will find that cheating is held in contempt, that any youth who tries to
“ sneak ” an advantage from his fellows is not only pummelled, but
“ boycotted.” Why should it be different when the “ game ” to be
played is that of society ?
But it happened that an official visit which I paid to an “ undenomi
national” school1 at an hour earlier than the petty sessions suggested an
explanation. For there I found the “religious instruction ” going on.
The school was divided for this purpose into two classes, senior and
junior. The elder were studying the beginning of the romance of
Joseph in Genesis xxxvii. The points on which questions were asked
were the reasons for Jacob’s partiality to Joseph, the delights of a “coat
of many colours,” the filial obedience of Joseph—which, according to
the chapter before the children, seems very questionable—the signifi
cance of Joseph’s dreams, and the unreasonableness of his brethren and
father in objecting to them. The junior children were being instructed
in Matthew ii., especially the “ massacre of the innocents.” The lady
teacher was particularly anxious that the children should appreciate the
inferiority of Herod’s claim to be King of the Jews as compared with
that of Jesus. She was also careful to explain the wiles by which that
1 Lest it should be supposed that “denominational” schools would have done
better, I may as well mention that all the accused youths attended, or had attended,
a Church school.
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
47
child-slayer would have cheated the innocent Magi had it not been
for the intervention of the deity. And this was moral instruction !
Let it not be said that these instances are unfair because excep
tionally inept. The contrary is the case. I have myself known
teachers who realise that the practical problem is to awaken an effective
moral sense, and who try to bend “simple Bible-teaching” to its
solution. But it is they that are exceptional, not the type I have
described. And those exceptional teachers are usually earnest in
pleading for more freedom in treating the Bible and in extending the
scope of moral instruction beyond it. Nor let it be supposed that I am
here assuming the possibility of eliminating by any means whatever the
dangers attendant on exuberance of animal life in youth. But I do say
that the only way of minimising them is to develop as early as possible
a sense of comradeship, fellowship, responsibility to and for society,
which shall inspire the child to be as faithful to the surrounding
community as he is now to the narrower circle of his playfellows in
games. And I maintain that to look for any such results from a
talk about Joseph’s dreams and destinies, or about the rival regal
claims of Herod and Jesus, is to expect grapes from thorns and figs
from thistles.1
It may be said that our failure to improve morals as fast as we
increase knowledge condemns the churches as well as the schools.
That is so. But in regard to the possibilities of amendment in the
two cases there is this difference. The churches are much more free
than the schools are to adapt their moral teaching to the needs of the
time. Theological Articles scheduled in an Act of Parliament, and
even Trust Deeds deposited in a denominational Muniment Room, are
no more effective than the handcuffs and bonds imposed on professors
of the “box-trick,” where there is the will to get rid of them. But the
watchful jealousy of a majority on an Educational Committee elected
for the purpose of guarding the sacred compromise is not to be eluded.
As a matter of fact, it is notorious that the Churches are, to a very
considerable extent, changing their methods of teaching. I have
already given illustrations of the freer spirit which is gradually inspiring
even Evangelical Sunday-schools. We may well hope, therefore, that,
in accordance with historic precedent, the Churches will insensibly shift
the standard of orthodoxy. And, meanwhile, there is little temptation
to insincerity. Whatever may be the case with ministers—among
whom there is a great deal more moral heroism than is commonly
supposed—Sunday-school teachers, at any rate, have no temptation to
1 Anyone who supposes such an argument to imply materialism is quite mistaken.
It points to a universal religion, which involves, absorbs, and transforms all the
sectarian religions that have ever been conceived.
Schools
more stereo
typed than
churches.
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
continue their work of Bible teaching for a single day after they find
out that they cannot do so honestly. Besides, Sunday-schools do not
compel us to pay rates for their support. They have no national or
municipal authority at their back. They do not involve us as citizens
in responsibility for their teaching or moral influence. Whatever may
be said about the lingering fiction of a “ national ” Church, its Sundayschools are entirely voluntary and unofficial.
The case of public elementary day schools is very different.
Attendance at one or other of them is compulsory on some eighty-four
per cent, of our children. We are forced to pay for their support
Every
through taxes and rates. It is by the national or municipal authority,
spon^Mefor or both, that every lesson in them is given. We are, therefore, responineffiXncy sible for them; and if they are allowed to demoralise the commonschools.
wealth of the future, it is our fault. Or, if they are maintained on a
system proved to be inefficient in attaining the highest ends of educa
tion, every citizen is to blame. Further, the position of the elementary
teacher is a much more difficult one than that of the Sunday-school
teacher. To the former his work is also his livelihood. He cannot
abandon it with a light heart the moment he is required to offend his
conscience. Nor is there the slightest prospect at present of obtaining
for him an honourable “liberty of prophesying.” This would imperil
that sacred ark of the covenant, “ the compromise.”
The result is that the Bible teaching in public elementary, and
especially in municipal schools, is inevitably more demoralising than
that of Sunday-schools. In the latter the worst evil to be feared is
that of ignorance, or, perhaps, honest bigotry. But in the former the
tendency of the system is to make dishonesty a necessity of life. Or
if dishonesty be, considering all things, too hard a word to use, the
least evil that is possible is the prevalence of a lifeless formalism in
i
precisely that part of school teaching which most of all requires the
energy of an eternal spirit. Now, by this last phrase I mean the moral
fervour which persists from age to age only on condition that it shall
continually change its modes of expression into accordance with the
new actualities of the times.
Only use and wont can account for the indifference with which
the majority of electors look on while the springs of morality are
poisoned before their eyes. What does it matter? ask some. If the
teaching is false, it means as little to the children as the drone of a
beetle, and meantime the religious difficulty is avoided. It seems
never to occur to such people that they are thus consenting parties to
the waste of nearly one-fifth of a child’s school time. How can such
a system be anything but demoralising ? Even the children from
decent and respectable homes want waking up on moral subjects. Let
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
49
it be granted that such children hear nothing but good at home. They
hear it, however, in the form of kindly platitudes about “behaving”
and doing as they are told, and “honesty as the best policy”—which
platitudes are neither stimulative nor impressive. They require to be
made to feel that the matter of conduct is interesting, and they will
never be made to feel that by a teacher who explains the grammar and
geography and archaeology of a Bible story which he does not himself
believe. The fate of those children—alas, too many—who have no
decent homes to echo the platitudes of morality is far worse. It is
simply shocking to hear little victims of society’s crimes rattling off
pious phrases and shrieking saintly hymns to which they obviously
attach no meaning whatever. And if their teacher is compelled by his
engagements to add to the falsehoods and unrealities of their young
lives a lesson on a supernatural revelation which he does not himself
believe, he becomes, like the parent, to Christ inconceivable, who,
instead of a fish, "would give to his child a serpent.
Perhaps one reason for persistence in the present system is that its
most devout supporters do not regard morality as teachable, but expect
it rather to be inspired by a miracle of divine grace. The instrument
for the accomplishment of this opus operatum is the word of God, and
the word of God is identified wuth the Bible. A magic charm is thought
to lie in the syllables of the sacred text, like the influence once attri
buted to written spells—a charm altogether apart from any significance
of the "words.
Or if that be thought too strong an expression, I will try to defend
it. There are scattered through Shakespeare’s works very many gems
of moral truth quite clear and limpid enough to appeal to children in
the upper standards of elementary schools. Thus Portia’s exquisite
description of “ the quality of mercy” does not depend much upon the
context for its appeal to the heart. And detached sayings, such as
“Truth hath a quiet breast,” “Love’s best habit is a soothing tongue,”
“ Never anything can be amiss when simpleness and duty tender it,”
easily stick in the memory, and under free moral instruction would
become pregnant with connotations which would return whenever
the saying was remembered. But then no one attributes to such
words any supernatural authority, and they are, therefore, not recog
nised as “the word of God,” though in a clear sense they are so,
as being the inevitable outcome of human experience, which is a
partial expression of God. But the absence of a supernatural sanction
is thought to unfit such words for the purposes of religious instruction;
whereas when similar lessons are read from the Bible the supernatural
sanction is assumed, and therein lies their value. In other words, it is
not the moral contents, not self-evident truth, that counts, but only the
E
The Bible
as magic.
Not the
truth but
the sanction
valued.
�5o
How far
morality is
teachable.
Grace, its
meaning.
Communi
cated
through
human in
tercourse.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
supernatural sanction. And this is what I meant above by saying that
the Bible is valued for some supposed magic charm, akin to that of
written spells.
The same fond delusion which induces some well-meaning people to
hang up texts in railway waiting-rooms, or to employ sandwich-men to
carry texts on their backs, is also at the root of much zeal for text
grinding in schools. If the Genesis story of the Fall of Man, or of the
Flood, had been first given to the modern world by some learned
excavator of cuneiform records, we should certainly have considered it
extremely interesting, and in many ways suggestive of the attitude of
early ages towards the mystery of life. As fables they might even have
been recognised as useful for combining entertainment with instruction
in the teaching of children. But no one would have dreamed of making
them a formal basis of moral lessons. What is it, then, which gives
such narratives their sacred and even awful importance ? It is the
feeling that they are parts of a divine “plan of salvation” which must
stand or fall as a whole, and of which every separate part is essential to
the miraculous power of the whole. The moral significance is not the
point of importance, but rather the impact of a divine word.
Now there is certainly a grain of truth in the religious assumption
that morality is not teachable in the same way as, for instance, arith
metic is teachable. When, in the latter case, the main relations of the
digit numbers are fixed in the memory, the rest is mere matter of com
bination, requiring only attention. But no amount of memory work or
of combination of maxims will give morality. Here the working of the
sympathies and the will are absolutely essential. How is this to be
ensured ? The Evangelical people, who are the lifeguard of the system,
hold that it depends on a miracle of grace, and a miraculous Bible is, in their
view, the best, indeed the only means for evoking that. Now, I am not
going to assert that, as regards this miracle of grace, they are fundamentally
wrong. At any rate, I hold they are not so wrong as those who treat
of human nature as though it were wholly and utterly isolated from and
independent of the divine Whole in which it lives and moves and has
its being. But this expectation of grace from the mere repetition of
sacred spells is unworthy of the spiritual aspirations with which it is too
often associated.
No; grace comes through human intercourse, and the more vivid,
the more intimate, the more natural that intercourse is, the more
probable is the transmission of grace. Apply this to teacher and pupils.
The former is rightly expected to be the medium of a grace that touches
the sympathies and moulds the wills of his pupils. But he can only
discharge this function through free intercourse of mind and heart. How
is that possible to him in the course of lessons which require him to pretend
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
5i
a mental attitude wholly alien to his real life ? It is of no use to say
that it ought not to be alien to his real life, or that he ought to be a sincere
believer. There is nothing whatever in the engagement of a municipal
school teacher to bind him to that, and, even if there were, the ideas of
the most sincere “believers” about the Bible are now very often, indeed,
identical with those held by eminent unbelievers fifty years ago. But
the “ compromise ” makes no allowance for this change. And the
result is that really only a minority—and, I suspect, a very small
minority—of such teachers feel entirely at ease and natural in giving a
Scripture lesson.
How can a teacher, touched by the spirit of the age, feel at ease in
teaching the life of Jesus to his class? He has, perhaps, been reading
with sympathy and resistless conviction the article “Gospels” in the
new Encyclopedia Biblica, edited as we have seen and largely written
by eminent clergymen of the Church of England. He finds that in the
judgment of the writers of this particular article—a judgment founded
on evidence he cannot resist—the Gospels are a growth, rather than the
work of the men whose names they bear. For the reality of the miracu
lous events, including the resurrection, there seems to him now to be
no evidence whatever of the nature usually demanded by modern
historical science. And, indeed, nothing is left to him but a vision of
transcendent beauty floating between earth and heaven, too pure for
material solidity, and yet impossible of invention by any such minds as
are reflected in the New Testament canon. The result probably is that
he still keeps and still worships the Vision, as a transfiguration of a
supreme manhood too great to be understood or rightly reported by
disciples.
I am not writing a polemic, nor yet an eirenicon. I am not, there
fore, called upon to defend such a mental attitude as is here described.
I only say that, in these times, it is one very natural to many who desire
to keep both reason and emotion true. And those who go through
this experience, if they have the teaching faculty, are likely to be
specially quickened by that experience.
The very anxieties and
“searchings of heart ” they have suffered make them more sympathetic;
and the spiritual heroism which prompts them to refuse the consolations
of pretence gives a ring of sincerity to their utterance that tells upon
children no less than on adults. But imagine such a man or woman
set to give a lesson, according to the “compromise,” on the alleged
birth in Bethlehem, or the feeding of the five thousand, or the walking
on the sea! He must treat such things as historic facts, and is afraid
lest by any chance word he should betray his real position.1 He must
1 See preface, p. viii , where reference is macle to Mr. Nevinson’s observations on
this fear in his articles contributed to the Westminster Gazette.
The ration
alist teacher
and the lite
ot' Christ.
Bondage to
the letter.
�52
Disappear
ance of the
spirit.
To restore it
get rid of
insincerity.
Natural
morality
more easily
illustrated
by modern
instances.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
expound the “ fulfilments of prophecy ” asserted by Matthew or Luke.
He must explain away the words of Mary to the child Jesus, when she
said: “Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” If questioned
on the precise mode of multiplication of the baked bread and cooked
fishes that fed the five thousand, he can only reply feebly that these
things are a mystery, when he holds them to be fiction. The great
immeasurable soul of whom he has glimpses through the preternatural
transfiguration wrought by the Gospels is reduced in his inevitable
teaching to an itinerant wonder-monger, who puzzled the world by a
sort of holy magic. Is it strange that religion, taught after such a
fashion, should be morally barren ?
It may be asked, How would the position be improved by excluding
the Bible ? One answer is that the moral atmosphere in many schools
would be purified by the elimination of unreality and insincerity. That
such evils accompany the use of the Bible in school is not the fault of
the Book. It is a consequence of the conventional superstition with
which it is treated. But, so long as half the population regard it as
divine and infallible, while the other half believe it to be a collection of
human documents, each to be taken on its merits, it is impossible to
ensure sincerity and honesty in its use. If ever a time comes when it
can be used with the same sort of intelligent discrimination and freedom
as is claimed by university professors in teaching Cicero’s De Officiis or
Plato’s Republic, it will become an exceedingly valuable handbook.
But that time does not seem to be within a measurable distance now.
Another answer to the above question is that if morality were taught
as a part of our natural life, dependent on human experience and not on
a miraculous revelation, the teacher would be more likely to bring his
lessons home to the every-day life of his pupils. Which is the more
likely to inspire a wholesome fear of lying—the story of Gehazi, or the
account of a plague of small-pox which might have been stopped by the
isolation of the first cases but for the lying denials of their relatives that
there was anything wrong ? In my time it was usual to tell children
that “ Don’t-care ” met a lion, and was eaten up. The warning had not
much influence; but the true story of a child who walked unwarily, and
fell headlong down a flight of steps, induced, at any rate for a short
time, some alertness in looking to the path before us.
It is no aspersion on the Bible to say that it cannot supply the place
of systematic instruction in the morals of daily life. Listening to the
“ explanations given therefrom in the Christian religion and morality ”
by even the best elementary teachers, one cannot but feel that the
knowledge of Scripture is one thing and morality another. Both
teacher and taught are for the moment affecting to live in another world
entirely different from this, conducted on a different method, actuated
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
53
by impossible motives, and continually corrected by miracle. The
stories, the maxims, the doctrines, are items to be remembered for
examinations. But they are none of them on the same plane as the
child’s daily life. The notion of any practical application rarely occurs,
except as a preparation for death or a key to the dream-world of heaven.
In former years, when I was still a member of the School Board for Ineffectual
effort to
London, and much nearer in creed to the Evangelical Free Churches secure moral
training’
than I am now, I was so impressed with the practical absence of under the
late School
systematic moral teaching from the schools that I called attention to the Board for
London.
subject, and obtained the appointment of a small committee to consider
the question. One of the members was the late Rev. John Rodgers,
Vicar of St. Thomas’s, Charterhouse, and at that time Vice-Chairman of
the Board. My proposal was that a course of lessons should be based
upon the summary of practical morality given by the Church Catechism
in answer to the question, “ What is thy duty towards thy neighbour ? ”
I thought then, as I do still, that the summary is a very good one.1
The highest classes in elementary schools are perhaps capable of
receiving more definite instruction on the origin, nature, and obligations
of social relationships. But for children from seven to twelve years of
age it contains just the sort of practical summary of duty, in the form
of a “categorical imperative,” that is adapted to their needs. Drawn
out into a series of detailed lessons with ample illustrations, it would
form an admirable basis for a course of moral instruction and exhorta
tion likely to affect the life. In this conviction I went so far as to sketch
the outline of such a course of lessons, which, I suppose, exists still
somewhere in the archives of the extinct Board. And, as it was grounded
on the Catechism, I thought myself secure of support from Evangelical
Churchmen. I am glad to remember that the Rev. John Rodgers
supported me. But I was sadly disappointed in the more pronounced
Evangelical laymen. One of them, a most excellent man in all social
and business relations, though belonging to the straitest sect of
“ Low ” Churchmen, and elected to the Board entirely on account of
his religiousness, declared vehemently that “ it left out everything that a
Churchman cared for.” It was useless to suggest that “ everything a
Churchman cared for ” could be supplied in a Churchman s own
Sunday schools. The very appearance of teaching morality for its own
sake, apart from the magic, symbols, and formulas of theology, was
considered suspicious, and the project had to be dropped.
1 Among those who never learned this Catechism a very curious mistake is
prevalent. It is supposed to urge contentment with “that state of life unto which
it has pleased God to call” us, whereas, of course, the words are, “to which it shall
please God to call me.” Also the word “ betters ” has been quite gratuitously taken
to refer exclusively to social rank, whereas it refers just as naturally to moral worth.
�54
Attempt by
the Moral
Instruction
League to
assert the
rights of
parents.
Defeated by
undenomi
national
bigotry.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
The decision was regrettable ; but, from the point of view fixed by
the “compromise,” it was perhaps inevitable. For both Churchmen
and Nonconformists, having once established and endowed the Bible—
and practically their common interpretation of the Bible—as the one
sanction of morality recognised by the School Board, were naturally loth
to imperil that settlement by any admission of merely natural ethics.
But, however that may be, surely the later refusal of the same
Board to allow children to be withdrawn in accordance with the
Conscience Clause from Biblical instruction to receive moral lessons
instead is indefensible. The facts are as follows :—
A society known as the Moral Instruction League was formed
before the end of last century to stimulate attention to moral teaching
in schools, and to suggest what the members held to be better methods.
Using a right which is presumably within the limits of the British
Constitution, to influence their fellow-citizens by conversation, they
visited the homes of parents having children in attendance at Board
schools, and explained their ideas. They showed that by law the
children could not be compelled to receive the regulation Bible
teaching. They pointed to the article in the School Board Code which
directs that “ during the time of religious teaching or religious observ
ance any children withdrawn from such teaching or observance
shall receive separate instruction in secular subjects.” They then
suggested that the parents, if they preferred non-theological moral
teaching, should withdraw their children from the Bible lessons, and at
the same time request that they should, during the time of those
lessons, receive separate teaching in morality. The suggestions were
received by the parents with an unexpected amount of favour. As
many as a hundred children, or more, were withdrawn from theological
teaching in each of several schools. But so threatening a schism was
met with prompt measures by the alarmed devotees of the Compromise.
In the first place, separate moral instruction was refused to the children
withdrawn. Instead of that, they were set to toil apart at ordinary
school drudgery. Now, this appears to have been a rather hard, and
even cruel, interpretation of the School Board rule; for it virtually
refuses to recognise ethics as a “secular subject,” and it forces upon
unwilling parents the alternative of Bible or nothing. Under such
circumstances, it is easy to understand the success of the next step
taken by zealots for the Compromise. The parents were visited in
their homes, and the difficulty and unpleasantness of the situation
created for their children were vigorously explained. The result was
that the children returned to the Bible lessons; and this has probably
been adduced as evidence of the unanimous desire of parents of all
creeds and none to have their children taught the common faith of
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
55
Evangelical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Independents.
It would have been more generous, and equally in accord with their
existing School Board regulations, if the Board had consented to regard
natural ethics as a “secular subject,” and detailed teachers—who
could easily have been found—to give the lessons to the children for
whom they were asked. The refusal to do so suggests that the
authorities were afraid of the experiment. Perhaps, like the authorities
of Jewish orthodoxy at the first feeble beginnings of Christianity, “they
doubted whereunto this would grow.” But, after all, they are ministers
of law, not of their own theological views; and I cannot for a moment
suppose that their legal advisers would have told them that a concession
to these parents would be contrary to the law. There are some,
especially among the clergy, who boldly maintain the right of every
parent to have his children taught his own creed at the public expense.
It is noteworthy that these extremists belong to a Church which formerly
resisted fiercely the imposition of a conscience clause, and which also
refused to believe that any schools were necessary except her own.
But, though the new policy of the priesthood is certainly more
charitable than their former action, it has the misfortune to be imprac
ticable. Our sects are too many to allow this sort of liberality.1
But if ever there was a case in which parents were justified in asking
to have their own views of moral instruction carried out, it is surely the
case I have described. For they did not presume to ask that any
peculiar notions of theirs on transcendental subjects should be taught
to their children, nor yet any eccentricities of morality. They would
probably have been quite satisfied with the practical principles of
conduct set forth in the Church Catechism, as above quoted. If Bible
teaching can claim to be “unsectarian,” how much more justly can the
title be claimed for doctrines of morality from which not one in a
million of the population would dissent! The refusal of their request
was unreasonable, unjust, and ungenerous. That it would be sustained
by a majority of electors zealous for the Bible even to persecution may,
unhappily, be true. But it was not in the true interest of morality.
It is of a piece with the policy which sets unbelievers to teach belief,
and counts the conscience and heart of the teacher nothing so long as
he speaks by the Book.
1 Besides, it is absurd to say that a parent has a right to have his individual
opinions on transcendental subjects taught by his fellow ratepayers, and taxpayeis to
his children. For what the Commonwealth seeks by its education policy is good
citizens of this world, not of any unknown world. But when a parent asks that his
child shall be taught at the public expense such a doctrine, for instance, as priestly
absolution, he is asking not that his child shall be made a good citizen, but that he
shall be taught how to secure the safety of his soul in an unknown world. „ Such, a
claim is simply preposterous. If valid, it would give the “ Peculiar People a claim
to have their children taught at the public expense the sinfulness of calling in a doctor.
Bogus
rights of
parents.
�VII.
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
Contrast of
kindred
States
where the
religious
difficulty is
excluded.
Second in importance to the disastrous effects of a hollow compromise
on the teaching of morality is its injurious influence on the development
of the national intellect. In the United States, and in our own greatest
Colonies, there has been an almost complete elimination of the religious
question. It is true that in the older settlements of Canada friction is
kept up by the survival of Catholic claims and influence. It is true
also that in the United States and in Australia occasional efforts have
been made by devout sectaries to disturb the settlement effected by
dropping theology. We know, likewise, that in many common schools
of the United States the old custom is still kept up of reading from the
teacher’s desk at the commencement of school a few verses from the
Bible “ without note or comment.” I am one of those who think that
this comment of silence is worse than almost any other. The custom is
a tribute to the survival of Puritan traditions in America. But the fact
that, in spite of these traditions, the Americans have substantially left
the teaching of the Bible and Christianity to the Churches is all the
more creditable to their spiritual courage. At any rate, their practice
affords no support whatever to the evangelical compromise in England.
But these modifications of pure “secularism” have been almost a
negligible quantity. It is substantially—and excluding Catholic Canada
—almost exactly true that the educational policy of Greater AngloSaxondom1 has been determined solely by educational interests, and
not by sectarian rivalry. I recognise, of course, that other advantages
besides this blessed peace have favoured our kinsmen beyond the seas,
and especially in the United States. The absence of an Established
Church, the more prevalent sense of equality, and, in the great
Republic, the system of common schools, which merges all class
interests in the one national and patriotic interest, have, of course,
conduced to the same end. But even these happy features of the new
commonwealths would have been ineffectual if the religious difficulty
had not been excluded.
1 This, of course, excludes the Anglo-Dutch States of South Africa. At the time
of writing, the religious question in education appears to be in process of settlement
for the Transvaal by the adoption of a Bill securing two and a half hours’ instruction
per weekin “Bible history.” The population there has apparently not yet become
as much interested in historical criticism as are the people of England. Contrasting
the two populations, we may find a fresh pathos in Koheleth’s words : “ He that
increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”
55
�iwj&i
THE WRONG TO THE NA TION
57
These commonwealths have not had to balance the claims of jealous
sects. They have not had to repress the enterprise of heterodox schoc?
managers lest they should attract more scholars than the orthodox.
They have not been tempted to minimise the number of school places
needed in a district lest they should disturb sectarian monopolists who
could not raise the money for enlargement. They have been privileged
to consider two questions only—how many children required education,
and what were the best methods of intellectual and moral culture.
Whatever criticisms may be passed by our old-world scholars on the
rawness of American culture, witnesses of indisputable competence—as,
for instance, the correspondents commissioned to gather information
for the Times newspaper on American machine manufacture—are
emphatic in their testimony that the commercial and scientific progress
of the States is very largely owing to the facilities for education offered
from the common schools upwards. No ecclesiastical traditions, no
balancing of sect against sect, not even “ pious founders,” have stood
between the people and their intellectual aspirations. And this is not
in the least because the American people are less bigoted than we. So
far as we can judge, the Puritanical traditions of the Pilgrim Fathers
still exercise a widespread and enduring influence on American religion.
But, whatever may be their various beliefs, they drop them at the school
door, and ignore them in their educational counsels.
How different has been our experience in the old country! In 1807 ^sh^1'
the then Archbishop of Canterbury stamped out Mr. Samuel Whitbread’s veto,
precocious scheme of national education with a pious appeal to prejudice,
pleading for Christianity in the words of a heathen poet:—
Hac casti maneant in relligione nepotes.
This sanctimonious, but infamous, veto1 by a titled priest against the
education of a people is often quoted; but the oftener the better.
Those who have studied Mr. Whitbread’s scheme know that, though it
was of course far too indulgent to the Established Church, it drew the
lines of a really national education. And though it would not have
exorcised the demon of sectarianism any more than did the Act of 1870,
yet it would have practically anticipated by sixty-three years the estab
lishment of approximately universal elementary education. And when we
think of all that the nation has lost through that long delay, it is hard to
repress an indignation which, considering the sort of training received by
the clergy at the very beginning of last century, may perhaps be misplaced.
From that day to this the decisive consideration in every education ^nd^orlis
crisis has been not how to give our children the best possible training, ^ordibut how to 17
protect first the Established Church, and next the Bible. If Church and
Bible.
1 The Bill had passed the Commons, and would almost certainly have passed the
Lords if the Archbishop would have allowed it.
�5*
Failure of
Mr. Bal
four’s Act.
A lesson for
the future.
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
the Nonconformists had not been false to their professed principles in
1870, a great part of the nation might then have adopted a wider policy
which must ultimately have attracted the whole people. But at the
golden opportunity their spiritual courage failed them. They dared not
trust religion to the “voluntary principle” which they had invoked
against the Established Church. They accepted State patronage and
control for religion in the schools. After that great betrayal every
School Board election became a theological battle. Questions of
education were quite secondary. How many candidates gave an hour
during their canvass to the best methods of teaching to read, or the most
interesting modes of presenting the problems of arithmetic? The
retention of the Bible, and the interpretation of “ unsectarianism,” or
rather “ intersectarianism,” so as to include all evangelical doctrine, have
been the two notes to which every platform has echoed.
Nor has the Act of 1902 successfully evaded the difficulty as the
ingenious and subtle-minded Premier of that day supposed it would.
For sectarian strife has been simply transferred to County Council
elections; and the balance of sects is considered more important than
educational knowledge in the selection of co-opted members of the local
Education Committees.
In the battle of progress it is always good to fix upon some definite
assertion of principle to be maintained at all costs. Supposing that
principle to be chosen, as a successful general selects his point of attack,
because it commands the field, victory on that point means a good deal
more than the achievement of one item in a political programme. The
success leavens the national mind with a new temper that suggests
consequential steps of further advance. When Cobden and his associates
in the Anti-Corn Law League fixed on the bread tax as their objective
point of attack, they were wise in their generation. The movement was
the more speedily successful because concentrated on the least defensible
position of Protectionists. But when once that point was yielded, the
whole case for Protection in general was practically given away; and the
doctrine of customs dues for revenue alone was triumphant.
In 1870 the Nonconformists had it in their power to do for the
emancipation of education what Cobden and Bright accomplished for
freedom of trade in 1846. The experience of religious Dissenters since
the beginning of the nineteenth century might have taught them that
sectarian domination, or sectarian rivalry, was hopelessly irreconcileable
with freedom of educational development. Common sense dictated
that the only effective way of removing the obstacle was to eliminate
theology entirely from public elementary schools, and to relegate it to
the free action of the Churches in accordance with the principles up to
that date held by Nonconformists. The notion of any danger to religion
�THE WRONG TO THE NATION
L
F
s
’
59
from such a policy ought to have been dissipated by the splendid
examples in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. So obvious
seemed the inference from such palpable facts that Mr. Gladstone
himself anticipated a Nonconformist demand for a “secular” system.1
Unfortunately, he gave them credit for more faith in their own principles
than they possessed. But if they had been courageous enough for
consistency, tens of thousands of the generation then coming into the
world would have been saved from the sectarian curse which has since
- blighted their education.
Let us observe what would have been gained by the exclusion of
theology. In the first place, there would have been a clear and definite
assertion of religious equality in the schools. Where education is
carried on under State patronage and control there are only two alterna
tive methods of maintaining religious equality in the schools. The one
is to teach every creed, and the other is to teach none. In a country
where a very few great denominations hold the field, as in Germany2 or
Austria, the former plan is possible, or at least plausible, though even
in such cases there are fragmentary sects who suffer wrong. De minimis
non curat lex. In Scotland also practically the same system is possible,
for Presbyterianism of one form or another is professed by nearly
the whole population. In Ireland the bad traditions of Protestant
supremacy have survived disestablishment: and education remains a
battle-field. Now I am dealing with the case of England and Wales,
not with that of Scotland or of Ireland. But, lest it should be supposed
that I shirk the question of the latter country, I will say at once that,
Ireland being still medieeval in religion, it would be ridiculous to try to
solve the problem of either school or university education on twentieth
century principles. Therefore no solution can possibly be found by
1 This is now too well established to need confirmation. He did not, indeed,
characterise “ simple Bible teaching ” as “ a monstrosity.” But he did characterise
as such the pretence of any municipal body to define what “ simple Bible teaching ” is.
2 We are sometimes pointed to the free, unhindered development of education in
Germany as a proof of at least the harmlessness of a denominational, system. But
between Germany and England there are very pregnant differences which make any
parallel impossible. Speaking generally, religious belief is not so much a matter of
individual conviction among average Germans as with us. Not that they are. less
religious in sentiment. Possibly they are even more so, because of their conventional
indifference about creeds. But they have not generally that idea of the duty of
individual conviction which generates our innumerable sects. Their confirmations and
first communions are very much a matter of social routine, like the “coming out” of
girls, or the assumption of the modern substitute for the toga mnlis by boys. To such
a state of feeling rate-supported catechism and scripture are of no consequence, and
this indifference makes sectarianism powerless for harm to the schools. Bismarck had
some trouble with Catholic obscurantists; but he gave them short shrift. Who ever
heard of a German district being stinted of school places to soothe the jealousy of the
Lutheran or the Reformed or the Evangelical Church ; or of a school generation being
allowed to grow up in ignorance in order that the Catholics might have time to supply
the needed school places ?
The two
alternatives.
Exceptional
case of
Ireland.
�6o
Working- of
the Smith
compro
mise.
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
ignoring the obvious fact that the Roman Church dominates the
consciences of three-fourths of the people as no Church or sect whatever
can claim to dominate the people of England and Wales. To insist on
“simple Bible teaching” in Irish elementary schools, or on undenomi
national universities, only adds insult to injury. The treatment must be
such as is adapted to a community less advanced in religious thought
than England; and “concurrent endowment” of educational institutions
is inevitable. The attempt to teach the creeds of all is never satisfactory,
even under the most favourable circumstances. But those cases in
which it seems to be compatible with some freedom of educational
development are explained by the fact that there is no desire for religious
equality and no intersectarian jealousy—at least so far as the schools are
concerned. They are cases of denominational supremacy by consent, in
the sense that social equilibrium is found, as in Germany, to be practically
secured by the recognition of a very few predominant sects in whose
influence the people placidly acquiesce.1 The champions of different
creeds do not fight each other over the starved minds and souls of
children. In England, however, the attempt to teach the creeds of all
is obviously hopeless. And those Englands beyond sea which have
most fully inherited the conscientious sectarianism of the Motherland
have wisely adopted the other alternative, and teach the creed of none.
Let us note the consequences of our perverse attempt at an impossibility.
Although the so-called “compromise”2 was devised and carried by
a Churchman, he was what in the vulgar language of controversy is
called a “Low Evangelical,” and, though one of the excellent of the
earth, he was considered in high ecclesiastical circles as little better
than a Dissenter. His evident desire to have evangelical Sunday-school
teaching introduced into Board schools appealed to the weak brethren
among Nonconformists. They thus gained the doubtful advantage of
endowment for their common gospel. But they inflicted a grievance on
Churchmen which it is impossible to explain away. For the genuine
Anglican view of Christianity differs from the united Nonconformist
view. And it differs from it in such a way that, if you teach the Non
conformist view, you necessarily prejudice the pupils against the Church
1 There is nothing at all in the above passage inconsistent with what I have
previously said concerning the conscience rights of minorities in a population that
religiously lives up to the twentieth century. When I visited Rome under Papal
government I had no scruple about conventionally “bowing my head in the House of
Rimmon.” And were I to live in Ireland, which is, as I have said, mediaeval in
religion, I should pay with cheerfulness either rate or tax for Catholic, Protestant,
Episcopal, or Presbyterian schools or colleges. But I must repeat that there is no
Chuich or denomination in England which has any colourable pretence to the position
which the Roman Church holds in Ireland.
2 The resolution of the late Mr. W. II. Smith was adopted with slight modifica
tions by so many School Boards that the case of London is typical of all.
�THE WRONG TO THE NATION
61
view, although you may say nothing about it. Nonconformists are
content with the Bible, and the Bible alone. Churchmen desire, also,
the catechism authorised by their Church. Nonconformists are satisfied A
if such explanations of Scripture are given as will set forth “the plan m.
of salvation,” meaning thereby the evangelical view of the Fall, the
types of Christ in Jewish history and ritual, the Incarnation, the
Atonement, and justification by faith. Churchmen, on the other hand,
attach great importance to the creeds and sacraments, and are naturally
jealous of any teaching which tends to represent the former as sufficient
without the latter. That this is actually the tendency of “ School Board
religion ” can hardly with fairness be denied.
1 think, then, that Churchmen had, and still have, a grievance under
local education authorities with their “ simple Bible teaching.” But the
policy pursued by Churchmen to secure its removal or diminution has
been a blight on the education of the country. They have resisted the
building of Board schools that were urgently needed. They have
insisted on keeping children in crowded and stifling rooms rather than
allow the relief which would have been given by undenominational
schools. They have stigmatised as “ unfair competition ” the endeavour
of School Boards or municipal authorities to spend their larger resources
on giving the children of ratepayers a higher education than the sects
could give them. They resisted low fees, and still more free schools)
as long as they could ; and when their opposition was bought out by the
fee grant they managed to retain a power of exacting special fees in
addition, and railed against every attempt of Liberals to rid education
of such vexatious hindrances.
Their influence with Parliament is enormous, and must continue to
be so while the choice of electors is practically limited to a small class
of moneyed men naturally susceptible to social glamour. Indeed, that
influence is resistless except during the brief moments when what
Edward Miall used to call “ some great blazing principle ” concentrates
popular attention. Such a principle was victorious when Church rates
were abolished, and when the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland
was disestablished. Such a principle might have been found in a real
religious equality for the schools. But the endowment of the united
evangelical sects provided nothing of the kind. It made all Non
conformist appeals to justice hollow and feeble, while it put a weapon
into the hands of Churchmen which they would not otherwise have
possessed. The result has been a course of reactionary legislation, the
purpose of which has been to restore, or at least maintain, eccle
siastical control, while its inevitable effect has been to obstruct and
blight educational progress.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
�VIII.
CONCLUSION
The next
Education
Bill.
Should
secure
moral
training.
Objection i
Material
istic, etc.
Human
experience
certainly
spiritual,
but not
admittedly
super
natural.
No wrong
done to the
orthodox
conscience.
In the Preface to this edition I referred to the failure of Mr. Birrell’s
Education Bill, and in these concluding words I shall venture to utter a
warning as to the fate of any future Bill which may be framed on the
same or similar, or even analogous, lines. “Weak counsels and weak
actings ”—to use Cromwell’s phrase—have brought things to this pass :
that morals are the worst taught subject in our elementary schools,
while by “ undenominationalists ” character and conduct, our chief
educational ends, are vainly supposed to be secured by a sort of Bible
teaching which Churchmen condemn, which Rationalists reject, which a
large proportion of our teachers cannot sincerely give, and discussion of
which even Nonconformists deprecate with a shrug. The first and
essential purpose of any new Education Bill, then, should be to make
obligatory in all State-aided schools a course of systematic moral train
ing independent of any supernatural reference, and based on the
experience of man.
There are not so many now as there used to be who would say that
this is sheer materialism and base utilitarianism. For surely human
experience is not all materialistic. Indeed, “love, joy, peace, long
suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” belong as
truly to human experience as does the desire to buy in the cheapest
market and sell in the dearest. It is for the wise teacher to select the
elements of human experience on which moral training is to be based.
And if he selects the worse elements instead of the better, he is not fit
for his post. Now, if anyone should say to me, “You have quoted the
words of an Apostle; why not include them in the ordinary school
lessons ?” my reply is, I am certainly most anxious to include such
words as those if you will only allow them to be treated as expressions of
human experience, and not of miraculous revelation. For the moment
you introduce miracle or supernaturalism you let loose all the winds of
controversy with which we have been buffeted in the previous pages.
Nor can it be pleaded that the pious evangelical teacher would
violate his conscience by treating the highest New Testament morals as
matters of human experience. For, whatever they may have been in
addition to that, they were at least realised in human souls and found
by human experience to be the highest good. Indeed, a great deal of
pulpit eloquence at the present day, and all the best Sunday-school
teaching, is an appeal to common sense to try, by practising it, the
62
�CONCLUSION
63
value of Christian morals. There can therefore be no hardship what
ever in forbidding the Christian teacher to go beyond human experience
while giving moral instruction in State schools. Or, if it be rejoined
that to the Christian teacher miracle and revelation are actual facts well
within human experience, the reply is, firstly, that Christian teachers are
so much disagreed as to the extent and interpretation of those alleged
facts that no denomination can any longer claim to represent the
Christianity of the nation; and, secondly, that all belief in miraculous
revelation is now so widely surrendered that religious equality, nay,
common justice, is impossible unless such questions are kept out of
State schools.
But we are told that such a scheme is impracticable. In this case,
however, it is not we, but the objectors, who refuse to look facts in the
face. For this so-called “impracticable” system is being actually worked
with the best results by English-speaking people who, in the aggregate,
number some hundred millions.1 To persist, therefore, in dogged
denial of practicability is only to prove that a certain stolid attitude
known as non possumus is not absolutely peculiar to Popes. Or, if
it be said that the circumstances and habits of the great Republic and
of our newest colonies are too different from those of the old country to
allow of our adopting their practice in this case, here again the objection
quietly ignores palpable fact. For we do actually during four-fifths2 of
our school-time adopt the very rule that is so often said to be unEnglish, and therefore impossible. That is to say, the State makes it an
essential condition of any money grant that during each half-daily
session of the school there shall be two continuous hours3 devoted
exclusively to “ secular ” instruction. And during these two hours,
according to any strict interpretation of the law, it is illegal to devote a
single moment to any religious observance, exhortation, or lesson.
Now, if it is found so easy even in old English schools to give exclu
sively secular instruction during four-fifths of school hours in all State
schools of the land, why on earth should it be “ impracticable ” to do
the same thing during the whole time for which public authority is
responsible ?
1 The population of the United States of America is now more than eighty
millions. Add New Zealand, Victoria (Australia), South Australia, together with a
large part of Canada, the sum will not be far short of the figure given ; and if there
should be some deficiency, every year is filling it up. The case of India is different;
but it also illustrates the fact that among a population of very various, religious
beliefs secular training (exclusive of morals) affords the only practicable solution of the
education problem.
2 Where—if anywhere—advantage is taken of the legal permission to have
religious observances, etc., at the beginning and also at the end of each school
attendance, the proportion of time given to religious teaching may be slightly more.
But the custom is so infrequent that the figure given above is substantially accurate.
3 It may be one hour and a half for infants ; but that does not affect the principle.
Objection 2
Impractica
bility.
Solvitur
anibulando.
Even in
England.
�64
Encourage
ment given
by present
system to
an unreal
division
between
things
secular and
sacred.
Personal
experience
of a
" secular”
school.
Case ot
children
neglected or
not reached
by the
Churches.
Repudiation
in 1870 of
any claim on
the State.
CONCL USION
At this point I will make bold to say that the present arbitrary,
forced, and unnatural system of a sharp time-table division does more
to foster a false distinction between things secular and sacred than any
State system of purely intellectual and moral training. For in New
England or New Zealand the children of three equally religious neigh
bours belonging to the Roman, Anglican, and Presbyterian communions
go to school together and sit in class together without ever having the
false division of things sacred and secular obtruded upon them. Having
had the good fortune myself, from seven years of age to thirteen, to
attend a so-called “secular” school, I know by experience what I am
saying. For that exceptional school, like the “common schools”across
the ocean, was frequented, even in Liverpool, by some Roman Catholics
of the middle class, and I think by almost every other Christian sect,
in addition to Jews. I myself, having been brought up in the strictest
sect of the Methodists, may perhaps be credited with having had even
at that early age some sense both of religion and morals; and I declare
that the moral and even religious tone of that “ secular ” school was on
the whole higher than in a clergyman’s school to which I was afterwards
sent. I remember at the former school being quizzed as a “ Methody,”
but it was in a very good-humoured tone; whereas, at the clergyman’s,
a Jew school-fellow, being quick to resent insult to his religion, felt in
honour bound on one occasion to “ demand satisfaction ” from a stronger
class-fellow on that account, and got, unfortunately, rather more than he
wanted. In the “secular” school—and the same thing, according to
all evidence, may be said of similar schools in the New World—the
fact of religious division very rarely emerged, whereas in the clerical
school they were the subject of constant wrangle.
To arguments such as the above, especially when based on personal
reminiscences, a superficial reply is easy, but not effective, because it
ignores the main question at issue. “ It is all very well,” we are told, “ for
children brought up in Christian homes to hear nothing of the Bible in
school. For they hear it read, and perhaps explained, morning and
evening by their father. They also attend a place of worship regularly,
and probably Sunday school as well. But what of the thousands of
children who come from homes which have no Bible at all, or at least
where it is never read?”
The reply is obvious and conclusive:
Caveat Ecclesia. Let those who regard the Bible as “the word of God”
look to it. For the nation has distinctly and formally declared by Act
of Parliament that, so far as public elementary education is concerned,
it denies all responsibility for any teaching of the kind.
By no
statute in force is Bible reading or teaching required in the public
elementary schools, although it is permitted under certain restrictions
—on the express condition that no grant of money is made for it
�CONCLUSION
65
out of Parliamentary funds. Not only so, but the nation emphasises
its renunciation of responsibility by refusing to allow its inspectors
to examine or report on the results of Biblical teaching. The plea,
therefore, that, if any part of the children of the State are without
Bible-teaching from voluntary sources, the State must step in and provide
it, is legally estopped by the fact that the State has, for thirty-seven
years past, formally repudiated any such claim.
The arrangement that actually exists is an unprincipled compromise
unknown anywhere else on earth, and perhaps impossible to any but the
dear old land possessed by so pathetic a faith in “ muddling through.”
For the teaching of the Bible is entirely voluntary: only the voluntari
ness is a privilege not of individual ratepayers, or of individual teachers,
nor yet of individual parents—for the Conscience Clause is a shamz—
but only of County Councils or their Education Committees. Now,
notwithstanding the awakening of thought indicated by the literature
and organisations above alluded to,2 I readily acknowledge that still
surviving social custom and tradition ensure at least some majority on
County Councils in favour of the apparently safe generality of “simple
Bible teaching.” But scarcely a ratepayer who votes for it knows what
he means by it. And the interpretation has to be, not fought out—for
it never is—but meanly thrown upon the teachers, with the tacit under
standing that if, in their explanations, they offend the beliefs or super
stitions favoured by the County Council majority, that majority will want
to know the reason why. Such an arrangement may be cunning, may
be “expedient ” in the very basest sense. But the Churches who think
that by such a dishonest compromise they are doing their duty to
neglected children, or teaching “ truth in the inward parts,” reflect
shame on the faith they profess. In all reverence, I say that their
nominal Lord—if I have ever understood him—would rebuke them
with the words, “ Ye know not what spirit ye are of.”
To such arguments I know of no reply but the ignoble plea that the
“ compromise ” hushes strife, or, in other words, that it plasters over the
open sore of religious schism, “saying Peace, peace, when there is no
peace.” But surely those who know and feel what is at stake—the
moral culture, the character and conduct of the English people—will no
longer accept this feeble excuse for the neglect of national duty. To
them the hush of theological debate—though welcome enough—will
1 This was well known to the rejectors of Mr. Birrell’s real and effective clause in
1906. That clause, in its original form, excepted from the law of compulsory attend
ance the time during which religious instruction is given. Mr. Birrell supported this
by his own experience as a Nonconformist school boy at a Church school. He
“ flatly refused ” to claim exemption from Catechism, not because he differed from
his father, a distinguished Baptist minister, but because he preferred to take the lesson
rather than be exceptional. {Hansard, April 9th, 1906.)
a See Preface to the new edition, and also pp. 5, 11—13, 54F
The teach
ing of the
Bible is now
voluntary;
but not so
as to save
the rights of
conscience.
The policy
of “ flushing
up ”
�66
involves the
paralysis of
moral
teaching.
Recognition
of the fact
by Educa
tion Com
mittees.
The only
way.
National
morals
would gain
by the
“ secular ’’
system.
CONCLUSION
afford no sufficient compensation for the criminal neglect of our
children’s training in the moral essentials of social life. For while
Calvinistic and Arminian, Baptist and Low Churchman, blandly agree
on “simple stories from the Old Testament,” the result is that Jacob,
who impersonated nearly all the later vices of the Jews with none of
their virtues, is exhibited as a type to be imitated by English children if
they would please God.
There are, however, signs of an awakening of the public conscience
on this subject, and a considerable number of local Education Authori
ties1 are providing for systematic moral teaching in addition to, and in
many cases at a separate time from, “simple Bible teaching.” What does
this mean ? It means that the Scripture lessons, as given tinder the Com
promise, have been found inadequate for the moral ends desired. And
if the truth were known, its inadequacy is the direct result of the condi
tions under which they are given. If, therefore, the above plea be
true, that the compromise hushes up controversy, the hollow truce is
purchased by the exclusion from the teaching of everything that could
rouse or inspire. But, indeed, the plea is not true. For Catholics of
all shades cannot be, and ought not to be, satisfied with the com
promise. And if it be retorted that neither will they be satisfied with
“ secular education,” no one asks them to be satisfied with it. All they
are asked to do is to accept—as they do now—some four hours daily of
secular instruction from the State, and to supplement it at their own cost
by their own teachers with the theological training they desire.
But if objections on the ground of materialistic tendencies and of
impracticability and of the sacredness of a hollow truce are proved to
be futile, much more are the fears mentioned in the first words of this
Essay shown to be not only groundless, but opposed to the moral and
religious interests for which they are professedly concerned. For the
facts adduced in Chapters V. and VI. defy contradiction. These facts,
moreover, are the inevitable consequences of the moral incongruities of
an educational system involving the social, political, and religious wrongs
detailed in the earlier Chapters, II. to IV. Now, of those who say
“ Let us do evil that good may come,” St. Paul made the severe
remark, “whose damnation is just.” And, whatever the condemnation
may signify, it is surely incurred by those who would encourage lying to
promote truth, or who fancy that forced insincerity in the teacher can
inspire “the simplicity that is in Christ.” No, no; the very first and
most essential condition of improved and efficient moral training in the
1 Among these authorities are ten county councils, twenty-one borough councils,
and seven urban district councils. The Education Authorities for the West Riding of
Yorkshire, Cheshire, Devonshire, and Surrey have a syllabus of moral and civic
instruction substantially similar to that of the Moral Instruction League.
�CONCLUSION
67
nation’s schools is the relegation of all doctrine transcending human
experience to the custodians of the various phases of the faith. This
does not necessarily mean “ clericalism ”; for Nonconformist Sunday
schools are certainly not clerical. And if any portion of our fellow
citizens prefer clericalism, they have a perfect right to exercise their
choice, provided they do not make it either a pecuniary or a moral
burden on the State. Rid of such a burden, the State would be free to
use all its resources, both pecuniary and moral, as it has never done yet,
for the training of its children in the duties of a citizen. My argument,
therefore, holds good that, so far from being a guarantee for moral
training, the present permissive and quasi-voluntary system of Bible
teaching in State schools actually prevents it.
There is, I believe, only one other objection, which I need mention,
to the proposed relegation of Bible teaching to those who believe in it,
and that is the supposed overwhelming consensus of popular feeling
against any such a plan. Well, the next Minister of Education who
introduces a Bill may possibly have his eyes opened as to the hollowness
of this assumption. My own experience suggests that as everyone is said
to believe all men mortal except himself, so in this case each sensible
person thinks everyone to be devoted to the great Smith compromise
except himself. For over and over again have I been assured by more
members of School Boards and Education Committees than memory
can count that not only do they regard the present system as illogical,
but they think it unfair and inconsistent with religious equality. They
do not usually add that it is dishonest. For if they realised that, I will
do them the justice to say that they would become “ Secularists ” at
once. But they always add : “You must know that you and I are
almost alone in such an opinion, and you can never carry your
scheme.” Well, we shall see. But this I know, that in the evolution
of heterodoxy into orthodoxy there come moments when suddenly the
vast majority of people discover that they always held the hitherto
discredited opinion, and on this question that moment cannot be far off.
One sign of the coming change is the rapidly spreading recognition
of the utter impossibility of the task we have been setting since 1870
to our Ministers of Education. And so long as the teaching of
transcendental doctrines, whether supposed to be drawn from the Bible
or from Church tradition, is made one of the duties of the State school
teacher, the solution of the problem is far and away more difficult than
that of the Sphinx’s riddle, while the consequences of failure are now likely
to be, at least to the Minister of Education, analogous to the fate of
the monster’s victims. The thing has always been impossible since the
Toleration Act. But as misguided genius would persist in trying to
square the circle long after it was mathematically shown to be an
Supposed
popular
opposition.
Growing;
recognition
of the im
possibility of
any other
settlement.
�68
Inevitable
failure of
any new
Bill on the
lines of 1906.
Recent
spread of
rational
religion.
CONCLUSION
irrational problem, so, notwithstanding the long-drawn agonies of the
Forster Act with its reactionary amendment by Lord Sandon, and the
cynical exposure by Mr. Balfour in 1902 of the real meaning of State
meddling in religion, and the collapse of the final desperate effort in
1906 to secure a principle in name by surrendering it in substance, it is
still possible that temporising converts, from Miallism to CowperTempleism, may beguile some unhappy Minister of Education into a
fresh enactment of “ yea and nay ” in regard to religious equality in the
schools. But the failure of such an attempt is as certain as that yea
and nay are contradictory and mutually destructive. It may pass the
House of Commons. It may even, by threats of revolution, be forced
through the House of Lords. But any such settlement must be almost
as shortlived as the bungle of 1902. For as that was doomed from the
first by its failure to realise what is meant by religious equality among
Christian sects, so any new “ compromise ” will be doomed if it stops
short of extending unreserved religious equality to non-Christian people.
But such religious equality will be accorded only when Parliament
awakes to the fact that in passing from the nineteenth century to the
twentieth we have left the domination of supernaturalism behind, and
have entered upon the age of reason.
If any book known to the last generation was confidently regarded
as a book of facts, it was the Bible. Neither Churchmen nor educated
Nonconformists are by any means agreed in so regarding it now. It is
indeed a fallacy to say that they have on that account surrendered the
Bible as the story of a revelation. But they have learned that the facts
to which it bears witness are moral and spiritual in a much greater
degree than they are historical. They are learning to treat it as a vision
of spiritual evolution exhibiting not only the verities of human expe
rience, but its illusions and unrealities as well. It is prized for its
humanity rather than for its supernatural portents. In a word, it is
now valued for qualities which would be impossible to an infallible
book. Yet even those who take these intelligent views of the Bible
are by no means agreed as to their application.1 And those who do
not take such liberal views would be horrified by a proposal to trust
“ simple Bible teaching,” except under the strictest safeguards, to one
of their misguided brethren. But while fully conscious of this vast
change, and of the controversies it stirs, we are asked to maintain, and
perhaps under a new Bill to renew and continue, in State schools a
system of religious instruction essentially based on the recognition of
the Bible as an infallible book both of history and doctrine.
1 Of course, the so-called new views are most of them old enough. What is new
is partly the fresh support found for them by recent research, and partly their
acceptance to so large an extent by religious men.
�CONCLUSION
The result is that a large and growing number of masters and
mistresses are required to teach what they do not themselves believe.
Now, whether the opponents of the evangelical doctrines deduced from
an infallible Bible are justified or not in stigmatising some of those
doctrines as demoralising, at any rate it must be admitted that to teach
to children as sacred truth what you regard as falsehood is certainly
demoralising both to teacher and taught. To this, as I have insisted,
is very largely due the paralysis that enfeebles moral teaching in the
schools, and keeps the habits and manners of our population practically
at the same level from generation to generation. The sanctimonious
pretence of simple Bible belief required of teachers in all positions of
the sliding scale of “ the New 1 heology ” demands either a self-con
scious art of balancing like that of the tight-rope dancer, or a resigna
tion to mechanical procedure by rote. In either case inspiration is
impossible.
Meantime this formalism or dutiful dissimulation excludes serious
moral teaching in accordance with the advanced experience and needs
of the age. Of course, none but a pedant would think of giving to
school children a series of abstracts from scientific writers on morality.
But the sense of scientific relation and proportion acquired by the
teacher in his own studies may very well furnish the invisible skeleton
on which his parabolic and attractive lessons on daily life are fiamed.
It is not an unreasonable presumption that such lessons would be likely
to bear more directly and effectively on truthfulness, cleanliness,
industry, and consideration for others, than a study of Gehazi, or
Ananias and Sapphira, or Mosaic camp rules, or Solomons reference to
the sluggard and the ant. With regard to the last point of consideration
for others, I do not dispute that a fine illustration may be found in the
story of the young prophet and the borrowed axe in the Book of Kings.
But it would not be morally safe unless the teacher, if he thought the
floating of the axe to be fabulous, were allowed to say so.
But the danger of overlooking moral flaws in beautiful Bible stories
—a danger by which all we lovers of the old Book are beset—-is veil
illustrated by Dr. Frank Hayward’s unreserved eulogy on the story of
Joseph. “I admit,” he writes, “that the secularist should keep his
eyes open, and steadily protest against the teaching of stories such as Joseph
the ‘ Blagues of Egypt.’ But the objection to this story is not that it is
mythological, but that it is morally pernicious. The Joseph story may
be mythological, but it is morally priceless.” Is it ? Well, I admire it
very much. It is—as I once heard a distinguished newspaper editor
say of the Gospel narratives—“such good copy.” But when I am told
that it is “ morally priceless,” I cannot forego some mild criticism.
For instance, was it an amiable trait in a favourite son to be so
�7o
CONCLUSION
Some points eager to relate the divine omens of p;s future greatness to his less
morality.
regarded brethren? A teacher whom—as mentioned on a previous
page—I heard dealing with this point, suggested that “Joseph could not
help having dreams.” True; but he could have avoided making them
offensive to others. I am well aware of the absurdity of dealing thus
with a relic of ancient folk-lore. But if we are seriously asked to take
it as “morally priceless,” we must deal with it thus. I also heard the
same teacher fumbling to find some moral element in the boy Joseph’s
character to account for his divine election. But he could not find
anything except “obedience to his father,” of which the evidence is
Ifthe wn- scant- The one heroic moment in the story of Joseph is his resistance
dent”0*'
tO -P°hP^ar’s wife- And I am far from denying that, carefully related to
children nearing the age of danger, the incident may be advantageously
used. The reasons for his resistance concluding, “ How can I do this
great wickedness and sin against God ?” are perfectly admirable. But
unless the little hearers are plainly told that the whole narrative is
legendary, the impression they get from it of the direction of human
destiny by dreams and capricious interferences of heavenly powers, and
knowledge of the future given by special favour to an arbitrary king,
is not quite “morally priceless.”
corneHn
Again, it was no doubt astute policy in a tyrant’s vizier to take
com.
advantage of the seven prosperous years in order to prepare a “corner”
in corn against the coming famine. But is the example “morally
priceless”? “And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine
was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan
fainted by reason of the famine.” What then? A ruler whose example,
on thlects was “ morallY priceless ” would surely have pitied the suffering people,
people.
and fed them on the most liberal terms from the king’s stored-up wealth
of corn. But not so. The incomparable Joseph thought much more
of dynastic interests than of the people’s welfare. Accordingly, by the
interest's0 r°}al monoP°ly he first “gathered up all the money”; “and when
supreme.
money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan,” “Joseph
said, ‘Give your cattle, and I will give you for your cattle if money
fail’”; and after the cattle were all made royal property, he pressed the
desperate people’s need to the bitter end by compelling them to sell
themselves and their wives and children into serfdom to escape starva
tion. Was this action “morally priceless”?
Hy toMsro'
On the other fiancL much is made of Joseph’s wonderful magnanimity
brethren.
to his cruel brothers who had sold him to the Midianites. His kindness
was somewhat severe in the mental tortures it inflicted not only upon
them, but upon their aged father, by the detention of Reuben and the
enforced adventure of Benjamin. But when all possible credit has
been allowed to his family feeling and his tears, the imagination of the
�CONCLUSION
child who reads the story is more fired by the exultation Joseph must
have felt in the fulfilment of his dreams, and in the discovery of himself
to his brothers as “ ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.” No one
feels more acutely than I the incongruity of such criticism as applied to
an ancient and charming myth. But when we are told that; whether
mythological or not, it is “morally priceless,” the incongruity must be
endured fora moment, in order that the more dangerous absurdity may
be exposed.
.
But, after all, if the truth must be spoken, it is not really the moi al, st^utes
but rather the religious, character of Joseph that is valued for purposes ^act-on?
of “ simple Bible teaching.” Here was a boy from childhood chosen
by God and favoured with dreams of the honour divinely intended for
him. It is always supposed, though the Hebrew story does not say so,
that Joseph was a very pious boy, envied by his elders not only foi his
coat, but for his goodness.1 At every crisis in the narrative Joseph s
good fortune is accounted for by the special providence of God. 1 bus Divmc *
Potiphar “saw that the Lord2 was with him, and that the Lord made all -ward for
that he did to prosper in his hand.” The narrative adds: ‘‘And it
came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house
and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for
Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had
in the house and in the field.” It may very well be that by thus
insisting on the “immanence” of God in Joseph and his fortunes the Jheprob-^
two writers out of whose versions of tradition the tale as we have it was
compiled were using the best expressions provided by their language writers.
for skill, integrity, and business enterprise. For we know that, according
to Mosaic ideas, the handicraftsmen such as Bezaleel—and surely there
is beauty in the belief—had all their skill in cunning works, in gold, and
in silver, and in brass only because they were. “ filled with the spirit of
God in wisdom and in understanding and in knowledge, and in all
manner of workmanship.”3
But, unfortunately, as I think, and as ever-increasing numbers, are Modernmisthinking now, that is not the form taken by Joseph’s religion as explained tion.
by teachers imbued with the evangelical traditions common to Low
Church Presbyterians, Wesleyans, Independents, and Baptists. No;
they inevitably describe Joseph as of the Young Mens Christian
1 There is perhaps some colour given to this—though no justification in Stephen s
noble speech (Acts vii. 9).
, ,
2 Of course, the original word here is “ Jaliweh ; and it makes a diffeicnce, but
it is not for me to point out what that difference is. I deal only with the authorised
version which is used in schools. The Hebrew idea of Jahweh was not exactly the
teacher’s idea of “ the Lord.”
.
a If rightly interpreted, this was Spinoza’s idea likewise, only with a transcendent y
truer conception of God.
�IN
Its
unreality.
Bearing- of
such con
siderations
on the
coming
Education
Bill.
Such views
not irreli
gious.
CONCLUSION
Association type—a very good type so far as it goes, but a recent birth
of time—as pious and prayerful, and always consistent in his profession,
and diligent in all religious observances. The now well-known sensi
tiveness of the Egyptians to pollution by foreign religions is never
thought of as presenting any difficulty in the way of Joseph’s court life.
Nay, his “ divining cup ” and his marriage to a heathen priest’s daughter
who would certainly bring her idolatries with her into his house do not
seem to suggest the slightest incongruity with the Young Men’s
Christian Association type. All such difficulties are ignored or
explained away in order to transmute this delightful relic of old Hebrew
folk-lore into a sort of ante-dated Christian biography of a pious young
man, who prospered immensely because, on account of his piety, “ the
Lord was with him.” It is this unreal aspect of the story, and not any
“moral pricelessness,” which makes it attractive to the adherents of
“the compromise.”
Now, no future Education Bill permitting the seal of public authority
to be attached to any such interpretations or misinterpretations of the
Bible can have any chance of permanence. It matters not whether the
sign of public authority be the use of local rates to pay for such teaching
or whether it be the employment of a national servant, the schoolmaster,
to give it; or whether it take the odious form of compulsory presence
in the school during the time of such teaching under the mockery of a
conscience clause, so humorously exposed by Mr. Birrell. However
indirectly given, or however ingeniously concealed, the stamp of public
authority on effete religious ideas condemned, or at least surrendered,
by a rapidly-increasing proportion of the public is a forgery of the great
seal of common consent. For the common consent does not exist, and
any law that assumes it is incongruous with fact. Not only does the
chaos of opinion contradict it, but the undeniable advance of knowledge
condemns it.
The doctrine of evolution is against such a law. Historical criticism
is against it. The resurrection of Egyptian and Assyrian life confronts
and rebukes it. The common sense of a generation better informed
than their fathers rebels against it. And all that any good-natured
Liberal Minister with a weakness for futile compromise can gain by it
is a brief reprieve for an already sentenced system, and the prolongation
of the infamy of a country which sacrifices its children’s intellects to the
ghost of a superstition about their souls. Now, if any reader who has
followed my argument from the beginning of this Essay should be able,
in sincerity of conscience, to condemn these last words as the blind
judgment of a materialist, I can only regret that in earlier pages I must
have expressed myself badly. For it is not the judgment of a
“ materialist.” It is the heartfelt conviction of one who, during a long
�CONCLUSION
73
life, has cared more for religion than for anything else, and who is per
suaded that religion cannot long survive the prevalence of insincerity
and hypocrisy in the nation’s schools. If we would but faithfully apply
our historic conscience to the moral utterances of the Hebrew prophets,
their words would be much more valuable than they are. Certainly,
considering the base expediencies, the hollow pretences, that sustain the
Smith compromise, and the flagrant contradictions it impudently gives
to both the spiritual and the scientific facts of contemporary life, we
should tremble at the rebuke of Jeremiah: “ The prophets prophesy
The Public
Authority
to be abso
lutely
neutral.
falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to
have it so ; and what will ye do in the end thereofI”
But I cannot leave the subject without observing, finally, that the
present position of the Bible in the schools is typical of the general
relation of religion to contemporary life and opinion. Not that I have
any wish whatever for State patronage and control of any new theology.
On the contrary, I have been urging all along that State and munici
palities alike should keep out of the steam of the Medean cauldron into
which the scattered limbs of old beliefs have been plunged in the
expectation that they will emerge “ re-stated ”—not reinstated, but
transformed. The words that I add now are only intended as an
additional illustration of the absurdity of interference by either Board
of Education or County Councils in the struggle for the new Reforma
tion. For, whether their interference be on the Liberal or on the
Conservative side of controversies that affect every page of the Bible as
a school book, in either case they do nothing but mischief by meddling
in a movement that must be spontaneous. For, again, as the old
Christians said, “Force is not God’s way.” The story of Uzzah and his
fate is a savage one. But it has its application to the fate of all vain
glorious rulers, from Nero to Mr. Balfour’s late Government, who have
sought to steady with rude hands the ark of transcendental religion.
And if ever there was one age in which such meddling was more
perilous than in any other, it must be surely our own. For, though I
yield to no Archbishop, nor even to the venerable General Booth, in
my conviction of the deathlessness of religion while the human race
endures, its position at present is paradoxical and beyond all statecraft.
The real nature of its permanent value requires some spiritual courage
for its recognition; while its doubtful accidents have become idols to
the superstitious. And, as always happens when form supplants
substance, frank discussion is feared lest the superficiality of belief
should be betrayed. Just as a guarantee against theological strife in
Education Committees is sought by agreeing to treat the Bible as
something which we all know it not to be, so a social eirenicon is found
in a conventional acknowledgment of infallible revelation. In either
Present
chaos of
religious
opinion.
�74
Makes Bible
teaching' by
democratic
authority
immoral.
The New
Testament
and the
New
Theology.
CONCLUSION
case, acquiescence is impossible unless either by an incapacity or a
deliberate refusal to recognise patent facts.
Yet, so far as most of the public functions of religion are concerned,
in vain, apparently, do Reverend Canons and Very Reverend Deans
assure us that every book in the Old Testament, except certain of the
Prophets, is of unknown authorship and compiled from ill-harmonised
documents of disputable dates. In vain do they treat as mythical,
fabulous, or but loosely historical every alleged fact down to the death
of David, as well as every miraculous narrative that follows. Even in
the pulpits, which should be first to feel the influences of these
dignitaries of the Church, the Fall, the Deluge, the miraculous exodus
through the Red Sea, the theophany on Sinai, and the divinely ordered
massacres in Canaan, are still solemnly discussed as parts of an
infallible revelation. Yet there is scarcely an intelligent, well-read man
or woman among the hearers who does not know that this stolid
adherence to tradition requires such defiance of the laws of evidence as
would not be tolerated in regard to the disputed ownership of half-acrown. Nor do our scholarly divines offer us any better guarantee for
New Testament history.1 The new Christianity does not insist on the
literal historical truth of the nativity of Jesus, or of his miracles, or
resurrection, or ascension. It follows the author of the Fourth Gospel,
to whom the idea was more than the fact. In like manner the new
reformers think they lose nothing if they keep the idea of victory by
self-sacrifice as it shines out from the Gospel story. But, if I under
stand them aright, they do not pretend that such an idea was anything
new to man. They only think that in the reminiscences, part memory,
part imagination, of the earliest Christians, the idea took a form which
touched the common people as it had never touched them before. To
the faith of the neo-Christian, therefore, it matters little that the details
of the life and death of Jesus are imperfectly reported, and that of the
music of his speech only a few sweet and pregnant phrases can be
distinctly recalled. The evangelists, whoever they were, wTere neither
magicians nor creators, and their -work is absolutely inexplicable, unless
there survived through Christianity’s golden age the memory of a strong
and beautiful and adorable manhood which made beholders, when they
saw and heard him, think of eternal love and life and truth. To the
neo-Christian the value of a spiritual vision, or of an inspiring tradition,
or a combination of both, depends more upon its suggestiveness than
1 See The New Theology, by the Rev. R. J. Campbell, especially the chapter on
the Incarnation of the Son of God. I expressly disclaim any intention of imputing
to him more than an acknowledgment that the New Testament history is fallible,
and, as regards some important events, probably erroneous. See particularly pp. 101-4
in the above-mentioned work.
�CONCLUSION
75
on its correspondence with material fact. He is not, therefore, robbed
of his gospel by the victory of German learning and research over oldfashioned Anglicanism. He had long ceased to look for salvation
through any opus operatum of supernatural beings. He is assured of
that if he is loyal to the laws of evolution by which the eternal All
works out the human ideal. But he is quickened in hope and faith and
practice by every concentration of moral truth in an inspiring vision.
And that vision of the “ Son of Man ” which shines, though so patheti
cally marred, through the pages of the New Testament like some noble
but ill-kept work of genius in an ancient cathedral window, is with him
always, and will be when the last fibre of dogma has been dissolved
away.
This digression may be pardoned if only because of a desire to show
that this Essay has not been prompted by any alienation of sympathy
from the spirit of the New Testament. I believe that the book will
always be a source of inspiration to mankind, and that the prime origin
of that inspiration lay in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth. I am
aware that only a small minority of religious people, as yet, are able to
acquiesce in so entire a surrender of evangelical theory as that to which
the learned doctors above referred to have seen their way. But, at any
rate, it is notorious that the conventional view of the Bible as an
infallible or absolutely authoritative book is now confined to ccremonia.
services, hypocritical social intercourse, and adherents of the great
Smith compromise. How much we lose by this discord between
appearance and reality will only be apparent to future generations. We
talk piously about the Prince of Peace, and we glorify war. We prattle
about Darwin’s ideas of evolution, and we wax emotioned over a great
statesman’s tribute to the “Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.” We
look wise when scientific lecturers explain to us the uniformity of
natural law ; but when the Church thinks the season too dry it prays
for a miraculous gift of rain, and when it thinks we are getting too much
of that it prays for a stoppage of the gift. We read with eagerness of
discoveries that carry back the arts and triumphs of civilisation at least
seven millenniums before the Christian era, and then pretend to acquiesce
in prayers and sermons that imply a four or five thousand year period
for the whole “ plan of salvation.” Between our pious pretences and our
real convictions there is a discontinuity which cuts off practical life from
the real sources of inspiration still open in unwrested truth and the facts
of the world’s order. And, meantime, to ensure the reign of hypocrisy
in the coming age, we compel our teachers every day to instruct the
rising generation in beliefs which we no longer hold ourselves.
��INDEX
Churchmen’s contempt for mere morals, 53
----- grievance a real one, xi n, 60-1
Church Times, the, consistency of, xi
Civilisation, antiquity of, 23
Commonwealth, meaning and rights of, 21
Compromise of 1871, xi, xv, 10, 24 M,
41, 47, 48, 51, 54, 60, 65
----- impossible in the future, 72
Concurrent endowment, when justifiable,
60
Conscience Clause a sham, 65, 72
Conscience, limit to its claims, 18
----- no monopoly of “ undenomination
alists,” 36
Conventional acquiescence stifles moral
Balaam's ass, schoolmaster on, 24
inspiration, 39, 41
Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., 39, 58
Bank-holidays and moral training, 44, 45^. Cowper-Temple clause, its recent inter
pretations, 30
Belief of to-day the unbelief of the past, 51
Creation, as a school lesson, 5, 6
Bezaleel, 71
Crime, juvenile, diminution of, 45
Bible, as a “classic,” vii, 44
----- as a fetish, 44, 49
Daniel, Book of, 38
----- and birch, 44
Democracy (now Ethical World}, letter
----- degradation by insincere use, 17, 42
----- history necessarily, in State schools,
to> 37.
Disabilities, religious, 14
taught as fact, 40
Dissenters, other than orthodox, 23, 42
----- its true value, 17, 68, 75
----- more difficult to use in State schools Duty to my neighbour, 53
than in voluntary, 48
Education Bills, 1902, 1906, i
----- not imposed now by statute, 65
Education Bill, coming, i, 62, 68, 72
----- rate, case against, 21
Encyclopaedia. Biblica, 13, 23
----- see Simple
----- valued not for mere truth, but for Enfant terrible, 40
Equality, see Religious
supernatural sanction, 49
----- word of God, how far considered so Ethical Societies, 16
Evangelical Alliance, 23
now, viii, 68
Evangelical Free Churches, National
Bigotry of “ undenominationalists,” 54
Council of, 24
Birrell, the Right lion. A., his Education
Bill, v, vi
“Fall, the,” abandonment of, viii
----- on the Conscience Clause, 65
------------ retention of in “ syllabuses,” ix
Broad Church, intolerance of, 9
Force no remedy, 44, 73
C/ESAR, things of, Nonconformists on, 33 Forster, Right lion. W. E., 16
Campbell, Rev. R. J., vii, viii »., ix, Free Church Catechism, 29
------------ Council, 24
36, 74 n.
Canada, 56
Gardner, Professor Percy, 39
Cases of conscience, ix, 5, 6, 36
Gehazi, 52, 69
“ Categorical imperative,” 53
Germany, false analogy of, 59 n.
Chaos of religious opinion, 73, 74
Gibson, Rev. Dr. Monro, 24, 25
Church Catechism, its moral value, 53
Gladstone, the late Right Hon. VV. E., 59
Churches freer than State schools, 47-8
Churchmen, scholarly, Biblical criticism Glover, T. R., on spurious religious
equality, vi
by, 33
Abraiiam, “life of,” 28, 29, 31
Act of 1902, its significance, i, and failure,
59
Administrative nihilism, reaction against,
16
All the winners ! 44
Ananias, 69
Anti-Corn-Law League, lesson from, 58
Archbishop's, an, veto on education, 57
Athanasian Creed, Rev. R. J. Campbell
on, ix
Atheism, 9 n.
Australia, 56, 59
77
�MORAL INSTRUCTION
UNDER THE
NEW EDUCATION CODE.
“‘Moral Instruction’ should form an important part of
every school curriculum.”—From the Board of Education's “ Code
of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools ” figo6).
“Gbe Cbilbren’s Booh of fiboral lessons,”
by F. J. GOULD,
will be found to be of tne greatest service to teachers. It is already in use in some
thousands of Public Elementary Schools, and is giving the greatest satisfaction on
all hands.
THE THREE SERIES.
First Series: “ Self-Control ” and “Truthfulness.” With Frontispiece by
Walter Crane. 128 pp., medium 8vo, paper covers, 6d.; cloth, is.
Second Series: “Kindness” and “Work and Duty.” 204 pp., cr. 8vo,
cloth, 2S.
Third Series: “The Family,” “People of Other Lands,” “History
of Industry, Art, Science, and Religion.” 203 pp., cr. 8vo, cloth, 2s.
By THE SAME AUTHOR.
“Gbe Gbilbren’s plutardx”
With Six Full-page Illustrations by Walter Crane.
Cloth, 300 pp., 2s. 6d. net.
Press Opinions:
“ The work has been thoroughly well done, and should be largely used in the
school, and also in the home.”—Leicester Chronicle.
“ Published with a moral aim, for the illustration of which no author could be
better chosen.”—Outlook.
“As a gift book The Children's Plutarch would be admirable. Plutarch's Lives
is a literary classic; as presented by Mr. Gould to the young people the work
remains a classic.”—Midland Free Press.
“ Better than any commendation of the book that I can give was the verdict of
a thirteen-year-old boy to whom I gave it. He read it through at a sitting and
pronounced it ‘first rate.’”—W. T. Stead, in ‘‘'‘The Review of Reviews."
London: WATTS & Co., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Bible in school : a question of ethics ... with special reference to the coming Education Bill
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New ed., rev. & enl.
Place of publication: London
Collation: xv,79, [1] p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Picton, J. Allanson (James Allanson) [1832-1910]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1907
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA993
N539
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Education
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Bible in school : a question of ethics ... with special reference to the coming Education Bill), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
NSS
Religion in the public schools
Religious Education-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9beadcc33cd3fd6332744f49d2b737a2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ttqJgUyNXiAb8ZfWgJQt-cYLyy3QttBavnNH25NBCAxvHrepY7-JAgukmJP4E6WXhioJka7Fy9lIps1ySATCEpg0sdxBRwjClwCb3nACGk7FS7DFRUw3otBJwrk6QACF4XX8kUKuuffkmC8pbhfJvFQadi9VT1GZ-wbY%7Eyv8itOpJ8K883%7EctJ26q8qVuOD8RJAYrFaIM-pEVjOw3i9awuqDX2FM2zdFMXL%7EROq3hnpjg7gNoCK4cJPMtcsL%7E4jMKa5bLSMOiWl2msaPt2XB3yJH9R0z9QOd8W3FGv0K8mdLNYyhWqZnnLBR48zG1ZU4dt%7ETNV-S82zJiC578wl%7EyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a388ebcfa1759ff18418fc00a92b2b33
PDF Text
Text
“Religious Education.”
A LETTER TO
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
BY
London :
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
��6 JO 7/
KT555
“Religious Education.”
May it Please Your Eminence,—I have read in the
Newcastle Daily Chronicle the report of your sermon,
delivered at St. Mary’s Cathedral, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
on Saturday, September 26th, 1885. From your interest
ing biography, venerable age, and exalted position in the
Romish Church, your utterances challenge criticism.
Whether they challenge criticism from any intrinsic con
siderations I leave your readers and mine to decide.
Recognising that you and I respectively stand at the
very antagonising poles of modern tendency and thought,
I will make an effort to come within touch of you, in order
to, as far as possible, realise your position before I assail it.
Your attitude I recognise to be a complete anachronism:
it belongs to the time when Rufus founded a castle on
the banks of the Tyne, not to the generation in which
Stephenson spanned that river with an iron bridge.
Your Eminence lays stress upon the special solicitud(e
heaven took in children, although only the children of
Jews, before the Christian dispensation, and then you
exclaim:—
How much more, then, are yours—your children that are born
again by water and the Holy Ghost, and are made children of God
in a higher sense than the children of Israel—members of Christ,
heirs of the eternal heirship of the Son of God, of the kingdom of
heaven ?
Am I to infer from the hackneyed and half-meaningless
pulpit jargon of this passage that God likes Jew children
well, but Christian children better ? I have been told
by God, on the authority of his own book, that he is
“ no respecter of personsbut you apparently know
better. Has the unchangeable God changed his mind
and given your Eminence the advantage of a private
revelation, prefaced by : “ Don’t mind my old book : I
�4
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. ’
am a much older and wiser God than I was when I wrote
that”? My children, your Eminence, are neither Jewish
nor Christian : perhaps you would be courteous enough
to say how he regards them. If there be a God who,
on account of the faith of its parents, would even com
paratively disfavour (as you allege he does) an innocent
child, I am glad I am only an Agnostic, and cannot,
by searching, find out such a God ; for, were I a Theist,
and could find him out, I should denounce him as a
malignant fiend and curse him to his face. Thrust aside
your theological tantrums for a moment, Cardinal Man
ning, and tell me if you are not ashamed of this mean
little godling you worship, who, before'he determines to
what degree he will love an innocent baby, takes into
consideration whether its parents are Jewish or Christian.
One of the reasons you allege why God loves the
Christian baby more than the Jewish one is, that the
former is “ born again by water and the Holy Ghost.”
Pray be good enough to step down for a moment from
your ranting theological perch to the firm ground of
common sense, and tell me, in the name of all that is
explicable, what this means. “ Born again by water and
the Holy Ghost” ! You know as well as I do that this
expression is as utterly nonsensical as if your Eminence
had said : “ Born again of a paving-stone and of the
fire-shovel.” Your dupes ask you for bread, and you
give them a stone; they ask for an idea, and you give
them words. Your Church conducts much of its service
in Latin, to impose upon the ignorant and keep them
ignorant; and your priesthood take care that their English
is as unintelligible as their Latin, the threadbare and labo
riously nonsensical platitudes of pontifical jargon. The
“fools and blind ” are awed by the presentiment that some
fearfully significant and mysterious meaning underlies
your priestly babblement. “Born again by water”!
Such jargon, instead of exciting reverent piety with those
with whom you have to cope now-a-days, evokes only
the irreverent contempt which asks : Do you refer to
parturition in a punt on the river, or to an accouchement
down in a diving-bell ? And as for your exceedingly
phantasmal Holy Ghost, will you tell me anything he
ever did, except his being mixed up with an affiliation
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
5
case under remarkably shady circumstances, appearing
once in the guise of a dove or fantail pigeon, and once
again in the shape of “ cloven tongues as of firewhile
appearing as Paysandu tongues, at 9d. a lb., would have
been more to the purpose ? Is this scurrilous blasphemy?
So be it. It is our contemptuous reply to divine thimble
rigging. Give us arguments to deal with, and wre will
deal with them ; but insult our reason with the hackneyed
and vapid platitudes of professional priestcraft, and our
sneer and our sarcasm will give you to understand what
we think of them and you.
Your Eminence assures us that, as regards children—
They have an invisible guardian—an angel ever watching over
them.
Here, your Eminence, you have effectively curbed my
irreverent levity. To talk, as you do, of an “invisible
guardian ” watching over every child is too sinister and
solemn a mockery for flippant refutation. You are
double my age, Lord Cardinal. Have you not seen
children as I have seen them ? Do you speak in igno
rance, or do you speak in truculent and terrible jest ?
Have you seen the child, partially born, have its skull
crushed in in splinters upon its brain by iron forceps,
as the solution of the desperate alternative whether the
life of the mother or that of the child should be saved?
Where was the “invisible guardian’? Have you seen
the child born mutilated and covered with ulcers, fearful
heirloom from the sins and sorrows of its progenitors ?
Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ? Have you seen
the babe, with sunken eyes and ravenous lip, and the
haggard look that babyhood should never know, tug at
the milkless nipples of a-starving mother ? Where is the
“invisible guardian?” Have you seen that haggard
baby dead and shrouded in a newspaper, as I have seen
it, and smuggled surreptitiously into the coffin of an
adult pauper, and buried with him to save expense ?
Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ? That baby was
so buried in its newspaper cerements because its mother,
who followed it to the grave, through want, would not
stoop to prostitution, even to save its life and her own.
Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ? Have you seen,
�6
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
as I have seen, the child born in “ holy wedlock,” but with
the prostitution of its mother resorted to in order to save
its life and hers ; and have you seen that babe, as I have
seen it, drain from its mother’s breast the syphilitic virus
till the cartilege of the baby nose and the scalp on the
baby skull rotted away, and the innocent infant was
putrescent before it reached the tomb ? Where was the
“ invisible guardian ” ? Have you seen the prepossessing
female child fed and nurtured by its own parents, to be
sold to the lecher—incipient human flesh exposed on the
shambles of lust, and knocked down to the highest
bidder? Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ?
I could go on with interrogations like these, your
Eminence, mounting step after step in the terrible climax;
for I, who write to you, am a man who have turned from
the study of Greek to study the fearful moods and tenses
of the streets ; and I have left Hebrew that I might
study the square characters of the alleys and the Massorah of the slums. The hand that holds the pen that
now writes to you has lain upon the pulse of the world,
and felt all the irregular throbbings of the heart of
Humanity.
The eye that glances upon the paper
upon which this missive is written has, for God, gazed
through the clouds of the esoteric till it has been com
pelled to look down in Agnosticism, dimmed and blinded,
outside the unopening gates of Mystery. I have seen
falsehood on the throne, and truth on the scaffold; but
I have never traced, and neither have you, the action of
the “invisible guardian.”
In pleading for the support of schools in which the
Romish faith may continue to be inculcated, your
Eminence remarks:—
And, lastly, some of you, perhaps, may remember the schools of
this parish when you make your last will and testament, and your
Lord’s name will be found among the names of your heirs.
Did your Eminence so far master your risible tendencies
as to look sufficiently solemn for your sacred calling when
you uttered these words ? Cicero opines that two augurs
could not meet without laughing in each other’s faces,
in tacit recognition of how they managed to gull the
populace. When you spoke of Catholics executing their
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. »
7
wills, and making Jesus Christ one of their heirs, did
you, internally, put your divine thumb to your sacred
nose and extend your holy fingers? You well know
that Jesus Christ—whether that half-mythical character
ever really existed or not—wants none of your filthy lucre.
You use his name as the shears with which to shear the
sheep, that the fleece may come to the priests. This
lending money to the Lord in celestial debentures is a
very old confidence trick and financial swindle, Cardinal
Manning. The swindle has never been a farthing in the
pocket of “ the Lord,” whatever and whoever he may
be ; but it has, for centuries, swelled the coffers of a fat,
lazy, and licentious priesthood. For how many dreary
and black ages the priest of your baleful creed has
attended at the bedside of the dying man and indemni
fied the expiring wretch against the red fire of hell in
consideration of the Church receiving the red sheen of
his gold ! Is the palpable imposition not yet played
out ? How long, O Lord, how long, will the mothers of
our race only bear and suckle fools ?
Your Eminence goes on to say :—
I would fain much rather speak upon the Sermon on the Mount,
or upon the useful history of the gospel we have read to-day, than
upon the matter on which I may say necessity compels us at this
time to think with all the energy of our hearts—I mean the state
and condition of the education of this country, the peril that is
before us, the unconsciousness of that peril; and that peril multi
plied by the fact that men are not roused up or awakened to see
what is certain and inevitable in the future. Let us, then, con
sider this. From the seventh century down to the present the
education of the people of this land was a Christian education.
The Christianity of England was perpetuated by that which made
England in the beginning. At this moment we have come to what
I may call a deviation from that sacred tradition, which, until now,
has sustained the Christianity of the people of this land. Some
men will call it a new departure. It is the language of the day ;
and it is a useful phrase for us for it is a departure—a striking off
from the tradition, the broad highway of the people, of Christian
England. And we are threatened at this time with a system of
education neither Christian nor English, but borrowed from the
vain and shallow theories of the first French Revolution—that is to
say, a State education without definite teaching, and, therefore—I
will say it boldly—Christianity. Down to fifteen years ago the
education of this land was in the hands of the parents of children
and those whom they spontaneously and voluntarily chose. For
the last fifteen years the State has claimed the children as its own,
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
and the State has claimed to be the educator of the children born
within its boundaries. These two principles are the principles of
the old Greek philosophy of the Platonic Republic, revived at the
end of the last century, as I have said, by the vainglorious and
superficial minds who wrecked the noble and Christian people of
France. And these two principles are establishing themselves in
the minds of the people of this country.
I quite credit your Eminence when you allege that you
would much rather dilate upon the “ Sermon on the
Mount ” than comment upon the, to you, extremely
painful fact of the education of the children of this
generation passing out of the hands of your Church, and,
indeed, out of the hands of Christianity. The “ Sermon
on the Mount,” with its cruel mockery and fiendish
sarcasm of '‘'■Blessed be ye poor,” is, possibly, the source
from which you have drawn your terrible trope anent the
“ invisible guardian ” which stands in watch and ward
over every child. But be assured, my Lord Cardinal,
that men are “ roused up or awakened to see what is
certain and inevitable in the future.” They see as clearly
as you do that the “ inevitable ” is that your Church is
doomed ; but they anticipate its dissolution and ruin with
equanimity, where they do not contemplate it with satis
faction. You, most reverend father, and your caste, have
lived upon the base craft of the priest and ascended on
the wings of sacerdotalism to the high places of the
earth; but those who do not belong to your craft have
had to maintain you, and they begin to find out that they
have been gulled too long by your wheedling them to
endure a hell upon earth on the promise that they will
have wings and glory in the skies. They are beginning
to discover that they know as much about the wings and
glory as you do, and find that they are so extremely
problematical that they have resolved to make the best
and the happiest of Here and Now, leaving the wings and
the glory to take care of themselves. They have resolved
that their children shall be taught Reading and Writing
and Arithmetic, and, where practicable, the “ Extra
Subjects and they have freely permitted themselves to
be rated for this purpose, and have practically told you
and yours to stand aside with your Gospels and your
“ Sermon on the Mount,” and let them have a little more
bread and intelligence here, and not stultify them any
�“religious education.”
9
longer with your child-bearing Virgin, your crucified
joiner, and your other monstrous, but to you profitable,
“ teachings ” upon which your poor dupes are to depend
for their wings and their glory.
The very France upon which your Eminence lays
such great stress is drifting away with England from
the rusty and obsolete moorings of your Church.
In France the item for education has just been con
sidered in the Budget; and, when Bishop Freppel
objected to secular schools, M. Debost replied that
they were gaining in popularity, having had since
last year 65,000 more attendants, while the scholars in
the Catholic schools have in the same time decreased
by 13,000. The establishment of professorship of the
History of Religions, to be filled with men who count
the Christian religion as but one among many, was also
very naturally objected to by the Bishop, as virtually
teaching a State irreligion. But to all this it was con
sidered sufficient to reply that these posts would be
filled by men like Ernest Havet and Renan, who would
discuss texts, and not dogmas.
What does your Eminence think of men of the type
of Ernest Renan and Ernest Havet? They are not
exactly the kind of persons upon whom your Church has
pronounced panegyrics. Your Almighty God and your
infallible Church are behind you. Strike and spare not.
Scatter the charred dust of the heretics on the wings of
the wind, as you were wont. You w’ould do so without
invocation from me; but your God has become decrepit
and your Church has become imbecile. There are, alas
for you, no lightning at Sinai to vindicate, no Holy
Inquisition at Rome to avenge. We “Infidels” have
emerged from the Stygian gloom. Our eyes have caught
from the far horizon the sunrise of the world’s morning;
and, long before the sun has climbed to the zenith, we
will stand with our heel upon the neck of your God and
your Church, proclaiming that heaven is annihilated and
hell extinguished, that the Demon of the Seven Hills is
dead, and that man, at last, is free.
Renan and Havet! Alas ! poor Cardinal. Your lines
have not fallen in pleasant places. Simeon Styletes,
standing uselessly on the top of his pillar praying, while
�IO
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
worms and vermin were eating holes through his shrunken
flesh into his sapless bones, was the type of manhood
your papist cultus produced. Marie Angelique, praying
forever, except when she stood on her head before the
Lord, and pointed up to his throne with her unwashed
heels ; or when she sucked, in his holy name, rags that
had bandaged and were saturated with the pus from sores,
was the model type of womanhood your Church pro
duced when she alone was the educator, and none
durst say unto her, What doest thou ?
Your Church, when all the power was hers, my Lord
Cardinal, inculcated a coarse, but devout, blasphemy far
beneath the mental and moral status of the School
Board system which you abhor. For instance, in
several churches of France, remarks Russell, in his
“ Modern Europe,” a festival was celebrated in com
memoration of the Virgin Mary’s flight into Egypt. It
was called the “ Feast of the Ass.” A young girl, richly
dressed, with a child in her arms, was placed upon an
ass superbly caparisoned. The ass was led to the altar
in solemn procession. High mass was said with great
pomp. The ass was taught to kneel at proper places ;
a hymn, no less childish than impious, was sung in his
praise; and, when the ceremony was ended, the priest,
instead of the usual words with which he dismissed the
people, brayed three times like an ass ! and the people,
instead of the usual response, brayed three times in
return!
Your Eminence objects to the School Board and to
secular education generally : no wonder, it is so exceed
ingly different from the “ religious education ” which
held sway when all the power was yours, and when Pro
testants and “ Infidels ” were unknown. A “ religious
education ” embraced profound speculations as to
whether Adam, not having a mother, was “created”
with a navel, and as to whether Christ could have taken
any other form but that of man—as, for instance, that of
a woman, of the devil, of an ass, of a cucumber, or of
a flint stone. Then, supposing he had taken the form
of a cucumber, how could he have preached, worked
miracles, or been crucified ? Whether Christ could be
called a man while he was hanging on the cross;
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
I1
whether the Pope shared both natures with Christ;
whether God the Father could in any case hate the Son ;
whether the Pope was greater than Peter, and a thousand
other niceties far more subtle than those about
“notions,” “formalities,” “quiddities,” “ ecceities,” “in
stants,” and “essences.” This “religious education,”
whose demise you lament, disposed the mind all through
Christendom to give a ready credence to miracles worked
by bottles of Christ’s blood and bottles of Mary’s milk,
“ God’s coat,” “ our lady’s smock,” part of the last supper,
a piece of the halter with which Judas hanged himself,
a bone of Mary Magdalene, at least two different heads
of Thomas-^.-Becket, Christ’s picture on a handkerchief
which he had sent to Abgarus, Christ’s foreskin, and a
finger of the Holy Ghost. In the genuineness of these and
thousands of other sacred and miracle-working relics all
Europe believed, Cardinal Manning, when your Church
had undisputed power in education; and, in the few re
maining dark dens of ignorance where your power remains
unbroken, your dupes believe in these relics still; but,
except in her dens of ignorance, Europe will tolerate your
“ religious education ” no more forever.
Ichabod ! the glory of your house has departed ;
and it would not be without sympathy that I should
listen to your wail of desolation, your voice as of one
crying in the wilderness ; but I hear in your wail the
clarion-blast which heralds that the New World is
drawn up in battle-line against the Old. I hear in
your voice in the wilderness the clash of steel in the
Armageddon in which Truth shall conquer Error, and
from which the world shall emerge, not looking for its
salvation to your poor Jew upon Calvary, but looking to
the might that slumbers in its own heart and brain for the
working out of its own sanctification and redemption.
Your Eminence states that, “from the seventeenth
century down to the present,” the education of this
country has been a “Christian education.” Yes; but it
is just because Christianity was established in England
so early as the seventh century (it was established much
earlier than that, as your Eminence will see when you
begin to read history) that it should be continued no
longer. What suited the seventh century will not suit
�12
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
the nineteenth. Human progress is as slow as the
proverbial “ mills of Godstill, it is progress ; and
what suited lethargic Saxons or steel-shirted Danes under
Offa or Hardraga will not suit the awakening intelligence
of England in the reign of Victoria.
Could I sympathise with a terrible calamity falling
upon the defenceless head of Abaddon, I should sym
pathise with your Eminence in your cry of tribulation
thatvthe education of the children of our time is passing
—has almost passed—out of the control of the Church.
This, to your Christian Abracadabra, simply means
perdition. It was only because the Christian priesthood
got hold of plastic childhood, and maimed the intellect
and mutilated the understanding, that you got Christianity
to be accepted by any except lunatics. Try it with adults
who never heard of it till they were adults, and from
the experiment you will be able to determine whether
or not what I say is true. I make bold to allege that
there never was a really sane human being in the world
who had reached manhood before he had heard of Chris
tianity, and then adopted it from the appeal it made to
his mental and moral acceptance. You have tried the
adult Jew and the adult Hindoo for ages, and what have
you to show for your missionary zeal and vast monetary
sacrifice? Your labourers have got no souls for their
hire. The field consecrated by their devotion, and not
infrequently watered with their blood, is sterile. The
effort is stupendous, and the result is mV.
No wonder that you cry with a bitter and despairing
cry that the children are taken from you. For centuries
you have crippled and debased them to bring them down
to the low standard of your creed and render them
the half-hewn caryatides to support the superstructure of
your wealth and power and splendour. It is in youth
the Chinese must distort the feet of their ladies into the
pedal abortions upon which Chinese ladies walk. If
they tried to do so in later life, the more consolidated
tarsal and metatarsal bones would resist, and the woman
would perish before the deformity was effected. It is
only in early youth you can bend the credence into accept
ing as fact that Jonah was three days “ in the whale’s
belly,” and that the Son of Man was three days “in
�“religious
education.”
13.
the heart of the earth;” and that, at the end of three days,
Jonah got vomited out on dryland ; and that, at the end
of three days, the Son of Man got up out of his grave
and flew to heaven. Tell this to any man out of Colney
Hatch, and see whether he will believe you. Then, is
it moral to impose to such an extent upon the innocent
credulity of a child as to impress fables upon him as
facts, and burn them so deeply into his soul with the
accursed branding-irons of your priestcraft that the
intellect of his manhood is unable to deface the scars ?
You can rely upon the judgment finding for Christianity
only when that judgment is strongly warped by early
prejudice. Without the instilling of that early prejudice
you cannot make Christians, and you never will. You
use with skill all the most powerful influences of mental
distortion : you use shuddering fear ; you use the most
exalted love. You terrify the child with the fire and
brimstone of your hell, and you decoy him with the
tenderest emotions to which the human heart ever
throbbed; for the child first lisps his prayer at his
mother’s knee, and, in after years, the words have still
memories of a mother’s kiss and the halo of a vanished
face and the echo of a voice that is no more. The first
dread of hell, the first memories of a mother’s love, are
skilfully linked on to a debased and degrading supersti
tion, and they are, alas! too often strong enough to
support that superstition through a whole life. And this
deep engraining of prejudice, in favour of monstrosities
which, but for this prejudice, wrould never, on their own
merits, have had a moment’s serious consideration, is
what you and your clerical fraternity of all denomina
tions call Education ! Education, forsooth—it is the
very antithesis of it. You know that the intellect, if left
unmutilated till it matured, -would attach at most as
much credence to the Arthurian as to the Gospel legends.
Accordingly, to make sure that the intellect shall never
see above and beyond the “ truths ” which must be
believed in the interests of priestcraft, you take the
intellect in its infancy and burn out its eyes, or at least
afflict them with myopia and a malignant squint.
And this is Education ! For shame, my Lord Cardinal 1
If your Christianity be so true and reasonable, wait till
�14
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
the reason is developed before you attempt to teach.
I will then make you welcome to the half-dozen idiots in
all England who will believe your fable. But, in the
name of all that is sacred in the soul of the race, desist
from mutilating the intellect and debasing the morals
of little children in the interests of your irrational and
execrable creed. They are guilty who mutilate the feet
of Chinese girls, that when they become women they
may not wantonly walk into their neighbour’s houses;
but thrice damned is the guilt of those who mutilate the
intellects of European boys and girls, that when they
become men and women they may “ walk in the way of
the Lord.”
The section of the Christian Church of which your
Eminence is an ornament has always presumed upon the
crass ignorance of its votaries, and done its best to keep
that ignorance devotedly dense. But surely you presume
too much upon the ignorance of even the dupes of the
Church of Rome when you slanderously refer to “ the
vainglorious and superficial minds who wrecked the
noble and Christian people of France.” Surely some,
even in your ignorant auditory, must have had a surmise
that the “vainglorious and superficial minds” you referred
to were the Economists and the Encyclopaedists. Your
disparaging sneer was flung at Voltaire, D’Alembert,
Diderot, Duclos, Mably Condillac, Rousseau, Turgot,
Marmontel, Helvetius, and Raynal. Was there not,
even in the dull brains of the bigots who listened to you
at Newcastle as you sneered at “ superficial minds,” some
unbidden vision of a living pigmy kicking at a phalanx
of dead colossus ?
And, as for “the noble and Christian people of France,”
where did they exist outside of the prejudiced imagina
tion of your Eminence ? As for the people of France
before the Revolution you deplore, “ Christian ” they
may have been ; but “ noble ” they were not. The world
has never seen—and may the world never see again—a
people so utterly trampled down into the abyss of want
and misery and general degradation. Every schoolboy
knows this ; but your Eminence, apparently, does not
know it—or, rather, does not want to know it. “ Every
thing was fastened on by a few hands; everywhere the
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION/’
J5
smaller number was in set opposition to the plundered
many. The nobility and clergy possessed nearly twothirds of the landed property ; the other third, possessed
by the people, paid taxes to the crown, a multitude of
feudal dues to the nobility, tithes to the clergy, and was,
moreover, subjected to the devastations of noble sports
men and the depredations of their game. The taxes
upon commodities weighed upon the great mass, and,
consequently, heaviest upon the people. The mode of
levying them was vexatious; the gentry might be in
letters with impunity; the people, on the contrary, were
ill-treated and imprisoned in default of payment. It
maintained by the sweat of its brow and defended with
its blood the higher classes, while scarcely able to subsist
itself. The inhabitants of towns, industrious, enlightened
—less miserable, certainly, than the peasantry, but en
riching the country by their industry and reflecting credit
upon it by their talents—enjoyed none of the advantages
io which they were entitled. Justice, administered in
some provinces by the gentry, in the royal jurisdictions
by magistrates who had bought their offices, was slow,
often partial, always ruinous, and especially atrocious in
criminal cases. Personal liberty was violated by lettres
de cachet, the liberty of the Press by royal censors.
Lastly, the State, ill-defended abroad, betrayed by the
mistresses of Louis XV., compromised by the ministers
of Louis XVI., had just been dishonoured in the eyes
of Europe by the shameful sacrifice of Holland and
Poland.”* So much for “the noble and Christian people
of France,” and the glorious state of affairs that the
“ superficial minds ” overthrew !
It is with diffidence I remind your Eminence of what
a “ noble and Christian people” the French were before
the “superficial minds” wrecked their nobility and
Christianity. To pay the infamous gabelle, a tax on
salt of about sevenpence in the pound, and other grievous
taxes, “ I have known poor people,” says Michelet, “sell
their beds and lie upon straw ; sell their pots, kettles,
and all their necessary household goods, to content the
unmerciful collectors of the king’s taxes.” There is a
* Thiers’ “ History of the French Revolution,” vol i., p. 9.
�“religious
16
education.”
well-known official document extant which proves that
the people were oppressed to such a degree that they,
“ could not buy wheat or barley ; they had to live on
oats, to nourish themselves on grass, and even to die of
hunger.” “ The people have not money to buy bread ;”
and Foulon, the model tax-collector, retorted : '"'■Then kt
them eat grass ”—this “ noble and Christian people of
France,” whose exalted position the “ superficial minds ”
so wickedly overthrew! No doubt your Eminence
admires the corvee with the admiration you lavish upon
the vingtieme and the gabelle. By virtue of this corvee,
on certain days in each year, the officers of the Court
went through the country, seized the peasants at will,
and marched them off in droves to make or repair the
public roads. For this the peasants received no pay;
and, if they could not, during their short respites from
labour, beg enough to keep themselves alive, they might
perish of hunger. Your Comte de Charolois amused
himself by going about with his musket in his hand,
looking out for peasants thatching their cottages, that
he might fire at and shoot them for the sport of seeing
them roll off the roof to the ground. How deplorable
it is to be sure that the “ superficial minds ” should
object to such a happy condition of affairs among “ the
noble and Christian people of France !”
Every Thzirsday.
THE
Price Twopence.
SECULAR
REVIEW:
A JOURNAL OF AGNOSTICISM.
EDITED BY SALADIN.
Order of your Newsagent, or send direct to the Publishers—W.
Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, London, E.C.
�
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/793055de08fd6487e4f9fe5ecdc6b172.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dOiGjgGzmBHO6M-rl60W3M3GPK%7EjJ1Yv8qBguFbwTYzs0yPabcd-yRKpWnL0GaGwjdM3S2-ie8vDiUUQdnu6zK9LqEy374ygToSm73iCUHEIEfQGwIBJnsCE1PlkIqjs4FGLwm6rrcRb3Vvw%7EDAT%7EKl3FLxoCe99Z9NwnigKYYvFWjqmHDF0695NkJ3TvBRLMCML-J2UzrhUPZsfnruBp6nXtcXTXOh70xJZqtgaAAc3tfWjJ7RCreH1UUWGlM919cV-v%7EZTMeuxuoIPSZjuN44UZ9zTnZDgjbcDl8twtFLzPCD9WoV7ne9RyfnBhzEd04Gwg2FGyDb51beNA0xhHg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8b6827c7ae3a4c1f4d8f4689dd88f18d
PDF Text
Text
“Religious Education.”
A LETTER TO
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART II.
BY
London :
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
�.......
¿ 1i
�B3 0 7y
“Religious Education.”
And, Cardinal Manning, you will be gratified to hear
that your Church played an exceedingly prominent part
in the state of affairs the abolition of which you lament»
Great numbers of “ the noble and Christian people of
France ” were Huguenots. We will say nothing of how
your Church waded through the blood of 70,000 of these
Huguenots on a certain eve of St. Bartholomew. But
here is a record in regard to how your Christian Catholics
loved the Christian Huguenots : “ Some they stripped
naked, and, after they had offered them a thousand
indignities, they stuck them with pins from head to foot;
they cut them with pen-knives, tore them by the noses
with red-hot pincers, and dragged them about the rooms.
........... They tied fathers and husbands to the bed-posts,
and ravished their wives and daughters before their
eyes.”* No doubt, since your Eminence considers these
the amenities of a “ noble and Christian people,” you are
justified in your opposition to the un-Christian character
of School Board education. It will certainly not pro
duce the state of things you seem to admire. No set of
men brought up at a Board school will ever see any
motive to use red-hot pincers upon the flesh of those
trained at any other Board school. The teaching of
secular subjects produces no such result. To produce
adult actors in the red-hot pincers tragedy, you must train
children m the horrid dogmas and ruthless intolerance of
your Church. All the murder and martyrdom has been
over your Catechisms. I have never heard that an inch
of human flesh has been scorched, or that a drop of
human blood has been shed, over the Rule-of-Three.
Quicks “Synodicon,” vol. i., pp. 130-131.
�4
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
If you want all the old stabbing and scorching and
persecution and hatred to go on as they were wont, you
will, in early childhood, have to lay the substratum on
which they are based. The School Board will engender
only Philadelphia and cosmopolitanism; therefore, you
do well to attempt to arrest its hand, if you desire a con
tinuance of theological sectarianism and rancour. Get
hold of the children, if you can, my Lord Cardinal;
for it will take very early and unfair initiation to induce
them to tolerate, much less adore, your creed and
you. I repeat, Get hold of them early, if you can ; for
remember the truism Dryden renders so epigrammatically
in his “ The Hind and the Panther —
‘ ‘ By education most have been misled ;
So they believe because they so were bred.
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the child imposes on the man.”
The Due de Chartres built himself a magnificent
brothel, to which from 150 to 200 fallen women were
led each night blindfolded. A gorgeous supper, com
prising the most generous and heating wines, was what
met the eyes of the wantons when the bandages were
removed therefrom. The 150 or 200 women sat down
to the feast in a state of perfect nudity, and had. the
fiery vintages poured out to them by the assembled
*
libertines.
Modesty cries to Mercy to let the curtain
drop upon this carnival of lust participated in by “ the
noble and Christian people of France,” before the
“ superficial minds ” incited the populace to wash away
the stains of Christian lechery in the blood of a godless
revolution. Madame de Pompadour founded that “ noble
and Christian ” institution, the Parc aux Cerfs, and to
this institution were decoyed pretty maidens, no matter
how young, to minister to the pampered sensualities of
the king when Pompadour herself, in the course of years,
had lost her fascinations as a courtesan. A secret police
was instituted to entice, or kidnap, these young girls for
sensual orgies in the Parc aux Cerfs. The pious
Christian king insisted that these girl-children should tell
their beads and say their prayers, anxious that he should
* Vide “ Regede Louis XVI.;” “ Soulaire,” vol. ii., pp. 103, 104,
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.'
5
have their bodies and that Christ should have their souls.
Christ generously responded to this solicitude. One of
the little kidnapped ministers of the king’s licentiousness,
a girl of fourteen, had contracted small-pox. From the
girl, in whom it was as yet undeveloped, the king caught
the disease. The malady was fire to tinder in the
corrupt and poisonous blood of the royal débauchée.
His body was one mass of nauseating putrescence. The
stench from the dying lecher was so intense that no one
could go near the bed upon which he festered and died.
Before the writings of the “ superficial minds ” had had
time to take effect, your God, Cardinal Manning, took
this “ noble and Christian ” king unto himself, because
that, when debauching the bodies of little girls, he was
so solicitous that Christ should have their souls !
In 1777 the surface of their “noble and Christian”
France was crawled over by 1,200,000 diseased beggars,
all hungry, all in rags, all criminal and murderous, all
suffering from hideous diseases which want and filth had
brought on, but all “ noble and Christian.” For mercy’s
sake, your Eminence, do, when you are moved by the
Lord Jesus Christ to speak, insist that he move you to
speak a little nearer the truth ! Remember you are not
speaking amid the darkness of the seventh century, to
which you refer so fondly. Remember that I, an ir
reconcilable layman, conduct a journal which shrinks
not from the duty of speaking plainly to you, Cardinal
though you be. The only arguments you ever had to
meet such objections as I raise, such criticisms as I offer,
were of the dungeon-and-fire order ; and neither of these
you can now employ against me. The storm of public
opinion has' blown the roof off your dungeon, and Freethought stands defying you with her foot placed upon
the torch that lit your martyr-fires. Do, then, keep a
little nearer the truth ; for, if you do not, I promise you
I will strike and spare not ; and although the clientele I
appeal to may not, in your opinion, be “ noble,” and is
certainly not “ Christian,” it is neither small nor power
less ; and it prefers my history to your faith, my blasphemy
to your mass, and my sarcasm to your prayers. This
clientele can, if you persist in putting forward devout
fallacies, afford to dispise your Eminence ; but your
�6
“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.’
Eminence cannot afford to despise it; for, unlike you,
it raises no wail that its house is falling into decay : it
faces you, young indeed, but strong and resolute ; and,
panoplied in the armour of truth and righteousness, it
means to go forward conquering and to conquer, till
“ noble” does mean noble, and till the term “ Christian”
is first execrated and then abandoned.
Let the tree of Roman Catholic education be judged
by its fruits. Those ignorant and down-trodden thralls
of “ noble and Christian France ” are a specimen of
the fruits. Do you object: “ These are the fruits of
the laic branches of the tree”? Very well, your
*
Eminence, I am willing to stand by testing the fruit on
the cleric branches of the tree—by the very Pope
on the chair of St. Peter. Pope Sergius III., the vice
gerent of God upon earth, lived in concubinage with a
woman named Marocia. Pope John X. lived in con
cubinage with Theodora, a younger sister of Marocia.
Pope John XII. converted the papal palace into a perfect
seraglio, and lost his life by the hand of a husband whose
wife he had dishonoured. Pope John XVII. pursued
the same licentious course, and also perished under the
hand of an avenging husband. Benedict IX. led such
a scandalous life that he outraged even the too tolerant
laxity of the Roman citizens, and was expelled the city.
Clement V. lived in concubinage with his own relative,
the Countess of Perigord. Paul III. was a Sodomite.
Pope Sixtus IV., the founder of the Inquisition, and who
is reported to have died of venereal disease, opened
brothels in Rome, which produced an annual income of
20,000 ducats, which went to help to support the luxurious
lechery of your most holy Christian Church. It was the
same Pope who, in reply to the petition of Cardinals
Robere, Riario, and San Lucas, requesting that Sodomy
might be permitted in Rome during the warm months of
June, July, and August, wrote on the margin of the
petition, “ Let it be so.” And as to Alexander VI., the
Borgia, what thinks your Eminence of him as a specimen
of the fruit of your Christian teaching? He lived in
concubinage with a young girl called Catalina Vanoci: by
her he had several sons and one daughter, the infamous
Lucretia. Lucretia became the concubine of her own
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
7
father, the Pope of Rome and vicegerent of God, and
cohabited with her own brothers, Luigi and Caesar.
This holy father-in-God—and father and more of
Lucretia—died of poison which he had himself prepared
for three Cardinals, and which he took in mistake. We
learn from Burnet’s exposition that indulgence in un
natural lusts was so prevalent among ecclesiastics that
St. Bernard, in a sermon preached to the clergy of
“ noble and Christian France,” affirmed Sodomy to be so
common in his time that bishops Sodomised with other
bishops! What think ye of this, your Eminence? Have
I shown you sufficient specimens of the fruit of your
Roman Catholic education? If I have not, say so, and
I will show you more. Give us, who believe in secular
education, a fair chance; give our system some fifteen
centuries, as yours has had, and see whether we will not
produce better fruit. One thing is certain : we can
hardly produce worse.
Your “religious education,” my Lord Cardinal, but
for influences which were non-Christian—nay, antiChristian—would have blotted out forever all the
learning that the past centuries of the world had accu
mulated. While your Church was piously and labo
riously discussing such problems as Was Adam’s faeces
before the Fall malodorous? How many angels at a
time can stand on the point of a needle ? the learning
which dead Greece had left, the learning which mighty
Rome had bequeathed to the world as she herself
crashed and crumbled into ruin, was trodden under the
brute hoofs of your Christian Church, but taken up and
cherished as a priceless boon by the followers of the
Prophet of Islam, whom your Church despised and
hated. “ All the knowledge of mathematics, astronomy,
medicine, and philosophy, propagated in Europe from
the tenth century onward, was derived principally from
the schools and books of the Arabians in Italy and
Spain.”* “ Mere human learning,” as your Christianity
contemptuously called it, owed its salvation from extinc
tion to the persecuted and detested Saracen.
No, your Eminence; learning never did flourish
Mosheim, vol. ii., p. 194.
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION/
under Christian auspices ; and she only dares to par
tially assert herself now because Christianity is rent and
shattered and half-dead, and where she could once bury
the Albigensian heresy under a million of bloody corpses
she is now impotent to break and silence a bitter pen
like mine. Learning was never at all in the line of the
followers of your uneducated carpenter and his illiterate
fishermen. Your creed, my Lord Cardinal, was hatched
in the nest of Ignorance, and only on the dunghill of
Ignorance can it thrive. Learning, I repeat, was never
in the Christian line; but, to cheer and encourage your
Eminence, I will tell you what was in the Christian line.
From accounts of the Council of Pavia we find that
horses and hawks and gambling and harlots and drunken
ness were very much in the Christian line, and very con
spicuously distinguished the Christian priesthood. And
as for the sanctity of woman, your Church conserved it
as such a sacred trust that the same Council remarks
of your religious houses : “ They seem to be rather
brothels than monasteries.” From accounts of the
Council of Mayence—and, remember, the accounts
of these Councils were not written by wicked Infidels,
but by devout Catholics—it is candidly remarked
that “some priests, cohabiting with their own sisters,
have had children by them.” How to make convents
into brothels, and how to have children by their own
sisters, was the kind of learning your priesthood culti
vated when they were not deep in absorbing studies as to
the exact odour of prelapsarian excrementum, whether
Adam, having had no mother, had a navel, and the
precise number of angels that could stand on the point
of a needle.
One other branch of “ religious education ” was parti
cularly in the Christian line; and, in this branch, the
Christians left the Saracens and all other pagans far
behind. This branch of a “ religious education ” in
which your Church so greatly excelled was Hatred. The
Christians could hate each other more bitterly, and per
secute each other more cruelly, than any other religionists '
on the face of the earth, and their ancient excellence in
this department of polite learning is not yet entirely lost.
It was, as you are no doubt aware, the common proverb
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.”
9
of the pagans, “ No wild beasts are so hostile to men as
are Christian sects to one another.” No one save rival
Christians ever drenched the fields of the earth with
blood over a diphthong, or ever flew at each other’s
*
throats over such hair-breadth twaddle as the difference
between Filioque and no Filioqne, till the Christian
Church was permanently rent into two sections, the
Latin and the Greek. We have seen the results of
“ religious education ” when your Church had the power.
These things were done in the green tree ; we shall take
care they are not done in the dry.
Is your Eminence aware that in 1861 (before the
institution of the School Board which you deplore), of
persons sent to prison, 8^ per cent, were under 16
years of age. In 1870 7 per cent, were under 16. In
1884 only 3 per cent., and this 3 per cent, has been found
to consist almost entirely of children who have managed
to elude attendance at school. So much for the abhorred
School Board and the diminution of criminality; but,
then, criminality and devotion to your Church go
together; and thus it is that you practically lament that
crime is on the decline. Statistics show with inexorable
clearness that, out of all proportion to their numerical
efficiency outside, the inmates of our prisons are Roman
Catholics. With Superstition and Ignorance you always
must have Crime; but, then, without Superstition and
Ignorance you cannot have Christianity, and, of course,
from a priest’s point of view, better have Crime with
Catholicism than throw over Catholicism to get rid of
Crime.
Before the Education Act of 1870, which is so detest
able to your Eminence, the so-called National Schools
were, as a judicious writer remarks, only sq in name, and
they were administered by one religious denomination,
being therefore under the control of its sectarian influence,
while also supplying instruction to a comparatively small
number of children. The remainder were to be found
in the Dame Schools, British and Ragged Schools, and
the Voluntary Schools of various denominations. But
* I refer to the dispute between the Homoousians and Homoibusians.
�TO
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.'
what of the larger residue ? They were running about
the streets; they were ignorant and uncared for, except
at the hands of noble philanthropists, like the late Lord
Shaftesbury and his colleagues. Imbibing the instincts
of idleness and crime, without a counteracting check,
they sapped the healthy life of the growing generation.
Crime among the juvenile classes had grown to such an
extent that in 1870 no less than 9,998 children were
committed to prison for a variety of offences. Over all
educational facilities for their improvement the State
possessed no control, excepting where schools were
subject to Government inspection as the condition of
receiving grants of public money.
And, in the incontrovertible words of another writer,
“ the Board Schools have through good and evil report
sown the seeds of a new era. The children who go back
to the slums from the Board Schools are themselves
quietly accomplishing more than Acts of Parliament,
missions, and philanthropic crusades can ever hope to
do. Already the young race of mothers, the girls who
had the benefit for a year or two of the Education Act,
are tidy in their persons, clean in their homes, and decent
in their language. Let the reader who wishes to judge
for himself of the physical and moral results which educa
tion has already accomplished go to any Board School
recruited from the ‘ slum ’ districts, and note the differ
ence in the older and younger children ; or attend a
Board meeting, where the mothers come to plead
excuses for their little ones’ non-attendance, and mark
the difference between the old and young mothers,
between those who, before they took ‘mates’ or husbands,
had a year or two of school training, and those who had
given birth to children in the old days of widespread
ignorance.” But all this indisputable improvement of
the social, moral, and intellectual condition of the masses
is, of course, to your Eminence, only a cold and comfort
less fact, seeing that your theological absurdities are being
neglected, and stubborn knees are being trained that will
not genuflect to crosses and relics ; manly voices being
trained, but not to whine your litanies; and above all,
breeches pockets being plenished which will not disgorge
their contents for penance and purgatorial fees for vest-
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.”
11
merits and images and candle-sticks .and altars and
painted glAss and mummery.
My Lord Cardinal, it is a simulation and a mockery
for you to speak about education at all. As a Cardinal
of the Romish Church, your comments upon education
are about as valuable as would be those of Satan upon
holy water. It has ever been your aim and policy to
murder education; he who murders any person is the
last one in the world whose sincerity we should trust in,
should he evince a specially anxious affection for the
person he had murdered.
I am sorry that the limits of this letter preclude
my giving more than the very vaguest outline of the
learning (?) of your Christian priesthood and the attitude
they have from first to last taken up as regards education.
However the exigencies of the time may urge upon you
to enunciate your theory to-day, we well know what your
attitude has been through all the centuries of your domi
nation. You have ever maintained that the wisdom of
man (and, in the name of casuistry, what other wisdom is
there ?) is foolishness in the sight of God. The unalter
able attitude of your faith towards education, about
which you now orate, may be summed up in the wellknown retort of the infallible Pope, Felix V. A cardinal
one day ventured to reproach him for his ignorance,
whereupon, with pious bigotry, the pontiff replied : “ The
Holy Ghost is not an ass, is it? Well, it will inspire me.
That is its business.” You educated, and (because you
change not unless when you cannot possibly help it) you
would still educate Christendom on the old-fashioned
lines of the Holy Ghost. Now, this Holy Ghost may be
very well as “ the comforter ” to devout imbeciles who
feel the peristaltic movements of the abdominal viscera,
and mistake them for the action of the Holy Spirit. Rut
this Holy Ghost, “the comforter,” is no schoolmaster,
and this I say to his face ; and if he, she, or it have no
face, then I say it to its os coccyx, or whatever part of
it it is decorous to address.
Your infallible Felix V. sounded the keynote of the
devilward march of your hierarchy when, instead of to
study, he gave himself up to gluttony and volup
tuousness, and where anything like education was
�12
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
wanted left the matter in the hands, or feet, or
tentacula, or some such organs, of the Holy Ghost.
And this said Holy Ghost has shirked its business
deplorably. It has been as successful in standing to man
in the place of education as the other third part of a
juggle of a deity has been in redeeming the world. The
party that permits me to speak in its name, your
Eminence, has had enough of the Holy Ghost as a
schoolmaster. We mean to dismiss this ghost, and try
some mortal with a degree from an university, or a certi
ficate from a training college. Besides being a school
master, this ghost of yours has figured as a dove, or
pigeon. The world will figure better when it sees this
pigeon finally baked into a pie and its feet sticking up
through the crust. Is this offensive ? It is not our time
to apologise; it is yours. You first insult our sense and
outrage our reason with your divine twaddle and pious
balderdash, and then expect us to be deferential and
apologetic. Your absurdity and cant is as revolting to
the Agnostic as the Agnostic’s anti-Christian blasphemy
can be to you. Cease to print your inane and insane
lunacies, and, of course, we will cease to attack them.
But, in the interests of the sanity of our race, in the
interests of man’s practicable hopes and rational aspira
tions, insult us no more with the pious legerdemain and
divine conjuring tricks of your pulpits; or, with the
most savage cat-o’-nine tails that sarcasm can wield, we
will lash your rhinoceros hide, O Church, till you will be
glad to find even in the depths of hell a refuge from our
scourge.
You have heard of the lex talionis, your Eminence.
Feel it. We are not your friends. We are your enemies
to the death. We refuse in the interests of conventional
amity to forget your faith’s diabolical record of over a
thousand years. Rivers of the best blood of Europehave, O Church, been let loose by your sword. They
have flowed into a sea of vengeance over which now
gather the thunder-clouds that will burst and shatter
you. These rivers of human blood flow between us and
you ; and over them we refuse to reach you any olive
branch. The charred bones of Giordano Bruno lie
between us and you. The flame that shrivelled up his
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
z3
majestic brain and heroic heart yet throws its heat upon
our “ Infidel ” cheek, and over these bones—holier than
tons of your priestly relics—we swear, by our deathless
and relentless hatred of wrong and tyranny, that with
you we will hold neither truce nor parley, that our helmet
shall never leave our head, that day or night our swordbelt shall never be ungirded till your utter destruction is
accomplished and guarantee thereby given that you, O
Rome, will curse the world no more.
“ Christian education ” indeed, your Eminence !
Unless you presumed upon the impenetrable ignorance
of your dupes, you would never dare to refer to such a
sinister sham and flagitious hypocrisy. I say it delibe
rately, judicially, and ' perfectly prepared to take up the
gauntlet of any historical student who may challenge
me : Christian education has been the curse of Europe.
From the very first, Christianity “ despised all knowledge
that was not useful to salvation.”* A great majority
of Christians were anxious “ to banish all reason and
philosophy out of the confines of the Church.”f Up to
the time when Constantine, the libertine and murderer,
took Christianity by the hand, and she found she was in
a position to argue with the sword and debate with the
heading-axe, she took no further pains to discipline
herself in what she contemptuously called mere human
learning. Formerly a section of the Christian priesthood
had taken some interest in such learning, in order to be
able to argue with the Pagan; but the Christian was able
now to argue with the Pagan in a far different fashion—
with the dungeon and the stake, and accordingly “ the
liberal arts and sciences and polite literature fell into a
declining condition.’’^ This Christian bigotry and
murderous persecution asserted itself till, in the words
of Moshiem,§ “ learning was almost extinct; only a
faint shadow of it remained.” Philosophy was persistently neglected, for, writes Moshiem, “ nearly all
supposed that religious persons could do very well without
it, or, rather, ought never to meddle with it.”
I could go on interminably, your Eminence, in demon
* “ Decline and Fall,” chap. xv.
J “Jorian,” vol. ii., p. 212.
+ “ Mosheim,” vol. i., p. 148.
§ Vol. i., p. 359.
�14
“religious education.”
strating that your Church not only utterly neglected
“worldly learning,” but that it assumed to it an attitude
of actual hostility; but I presume that even you, with
your faculty for pious romancing will not pretend there is
any way of rebutting the charge in this respect; so, turn
ing from your neglect of and hostility to “ mere human
learning,” I shall briefly revert to the “ religious educa
tion ” which you have inculcated for fifteen centuries,
and which you teach to-day. You want the education of
the children of this our England to be in your hands.
You teach that these children must be baptised, or that
they will be damned. So urgently do you contend for
this barbarous hocus-pocus of baptism that, if the mother
be likely to die while she is in a state of pregnancy, she
must be cut up alive so that the foetus may be extracted
alive and baptised to obviate its spending an eternity in
fire and brimstone. The sweetness and delicacy of this
doctrine is as conspicuous as its loving kindness of
the fiery sort that demonstrates itself in never-dying
worms and inextinguishable flames. This, your Eminence,
teaches us the incalculable importance of a few drops of
water at the right time, and the ineffective impotence of
the whole Pacific at, say, five seconds subsequent to the
right time. It also teaches us how profound are the
divine mysteries of a “ religious education.”
One beauty of belonging to your Church, your
Eminence, is exceedingly solacing and comforting, and
that is, that you and your fellow Catholics will be saved,
and that all the rest of the world will be damned; for I
find, from your “ Ordo Administrandi Sacramenti,” that
outside “ the true Catholic Faith ” “ no one can be
saved.” Of course, this is quite certain. It is also very
modest; there is not a vestige of blasphemous cheek
about it. The whole world has been “ created ” for the
purpose of being roasted for ever and ever, to afford
amusement to the handful of Catholics who will sit up
aloft in heaven looking down upon the agony wriggle of
the infernal pit. The inhabitants of the globe have
been estimated at 1,000,000,000, and the Catholics amount
to only 160,000,000. Heaven will be the dress-circle,
and Hell will be the stage ; and those on the stage,
amusing those in the dress-circle, dancing an agony break-
�‘religious education.’
15
down, and footing the fiery jig of the damned, will be out
of all proportion to the mere handful of privileged Papists,
wearing crowns, waving wings, thumbing harps, and
looking on. This doctrine is as humble as it is humane,
and gives us a divine insight into the glories of a “ re
ligious education.” It must be so gratifying to a true
Catholic to see his Protestant wife in endless torment.
She was loving and true and noble. She bore him sons
and daughters. In poverty, distress, and sickness she
stood by him with that self-denying and heroic tender
ness with which woman alone is gifted. She was the wife
of his bosom; but now, in hell, she leaps into the em
brace of devils. All this because she could accept the
Tweedledum of Consubstantiation, but not the Tweedledee of Transubstantiation. For this “ thou art com
forted” and she is “tormented.” So much for the
unspeakable happiness of “religious education.” I am
only an “ Infidel,” and only imperfectly appreciate it.
In fact, honesty impels me to make the impious admis
sion that I desire to be with my wife and children
wherever they are. I wish to be with them, whether
they be in Heaven, Hell, or Annihilation.
The “religious education” of your Eminence implies
subscription to the creed that, “ in the most holy Sacra
ments of the Eucharist, there are truly, really, and sub
stantially the body and blood, together with the soul and
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made
a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into
the body and of the whole substance of the wine into
the blood.”* After you have eaten a slice of this God
who made the earth and then came down to it as a
joiner and made wheelbarrows, your “religious educa
tion ” advises those who have eaten hocus-pocussed Godand-joiner to pray as follows : “ May thy body, O Lord,
which I have received, and thy blood which I have
drank, cleave to my bowels, and grant that no stain of sin
may remain in me who have been fed with this pure and
holy sacrament.”! If I could humbly 'presume to
comment on a mystery so sacred, I should reverently
* “ Ordo Ministrandi Sacramenti.”
+ “ Missal for the Use of the Laity,” p. 30.
�16
“religious education.”
observe that, after you have eaten a world-maker and
wielder of a jack-plane, there is little wonder if he should
“ cleave ” to your “ bowels,” that you should be afflicted
with divine constipation ; but I should, with therapeutic
piety, suggest that you work off the god with Glauber salts
and the joiner with jalap. Is this blasphemous, your Emi
nence ? It is infinitely less blasphemous than your missal.
Mine is a drastic attempt to make men sane; yours is an
insidious attempt, in the interests of priestcraft, to keep
men cross-signing and genuflecting idiots.
Price Twopence.
Every Thursday.
THE
SECULAR
REVIEW:
A JOURNAL OF AGNOSTICISM.
EDITED BY SALADIN.
Order of your Newsagent, or send direct to the Publishers—W.
Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, London( E.C.
HISTORICAL PAMPHLETS.
A Reply to Cardinal Manning, by Saladin ...
The Crusades, by Saladin
The Covenanters, by Saladin
Christian Persecution, by Saladin ...
The Flagellants, by Saladin
The Iconoclasts, by Saladin
The Inquisition, Part I., by Saladin
...
The Inquisition, Part II., by Saladin
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part I., by Saladin
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part II., by Saladin
The Persecution of the Jews, Part I., by Saladin
The Persecution of the Jews, Part II., by Saladin
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
O
I
O
I
London : W. Stewart & Co,, 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ac42b05fa6e08f7d070c327f7e01c591.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I71urxm7JSi0Omu7rdE7oY7cruzGRrk1gwrRSszjB1Ux3Ipu1XYDN7wOeA8FyzzrRjB0fGX6Y6D-DShumBtPFVxkKCYBsMV-g45ks4lnhkiAfRLIc5KdCw0apFW1x3Ijn8Gw7IfG3vwBqw00biKw15Z5Jm-YkB3qDXTPn3jfPVgp1JIBwd5u78gKG2GXXg1H3M38CR1IWTl6I68dXC4l3b-i2ESp91qSo405XwRVgKH8rIxXxG4hY3kj5zhSd4QIqzRFoBvfZP1q1E%7EzZ64xKGlbK9-WZLumbDm45I1mgpNCXMygC3Q2HsjXJS6Cvb%7EPgTTGfSX0YcKFGuRKyVIGoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6b2539ecd4afe671d4fc2d17c4606c73
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCT^ty
“Religious Education.”
A LETTER. TO
CARDINAL MANNING.
FART III.
WITH
ADDENDA.
London:
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
��B 30?9
M5 <>7
“Religious Education.”
Have I recommended purgatives to work deity and
mechanic out of the enterics of saints? May I point
out, your Church, in its “ religious education,” proceeds
on somewhat similar lines ? I find, from a rubric in the
“ Roman Missal,”* what is to be done with Christ, pro
viding that the saint vomit him ! The blasphemy implied
in a “ poor worm of the dust ” retching away and
vomiting God is a hyperbole of sacrilege to which I
cannot aspire to reach, and I leave all the honour and
glory of it to the Roman Catholic Church. I find that,
according to the rubric (how unspeakable the advantages
of a “ religious education ” !), the vomit is to be kept in
“some sacred place” till it is “corrupted”—in other
words, till God is rotten. It is so considerate of your
Church to thus write down to the level of a sow—perhaps
the only creature besides a priest who could contemplate
without nausea first swallowing the Lord and then
vomiting him, and then looking for him in the vomit.
And your Eminence would like this emeticating of God,
prodding about for him in the vomit, finding him and
swallowing him over again, or not finding and, therefore
burning him and the vomit, and casting the ashes into
the sacristan to be taught at the expense of the rate
payers ! The ratepayers are mostly fools, and pay rates
and taxes with too little investigation into the why and
wherefore; and many of them are addicted to finding
Jesus. But they draw the line somewhere. They
have begun to draw the line at the priest who, in
order to “find Jesus,” prods about in a vomit with a
breakfast fork! Ugh! But no. This is nastiness to
be sure; but it is divine nastiness, and part and parcel of
* Published in Mechlin, 1840.
�4
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.'
a “ religious education.” Would it be etiquette, your
Eminence, for the person prodding about with the fork,
when he has discovered the half-digested wafer in the
vomit, to exclaim, “I have found Jesus!”
Then, your Eminence, the fine, cheerful doctrine of
Purgatory enters into the curriculum of a “ religious edu
cation.” In purgatory there is a nice, clear fire (ignis
)
*
for cooking souls. This nice, clear fire is exceedingly
useful; it enables you to rifle the pockets of a man’s
relations after he himself has been laid in his grave.
The fires in purgatory are just the sufficient heat for the
dead to enable you to extract half-crowns from the
pockets of the living.
Old Brown dies, his body is
buried, and you get certain fees over that; and his soul
canters off to purgatory. Young Brown would not mind
a cent about his dad being in purgatory, if you would
make the place at all comfortable for him ; but you
manage to make old Brown hot enough to make young
Brown pay to get him out. All this is very clever, and
very religious. St. Christina, who had been in purgatory,
and managed to come back to the earth again (possibly
for her umbrella), told your great and learned Cardinal
Bellarmine that “ the torments that I there witnessed
are so dreadful that to attempt to describe them would
be utterly in vain.” The place was found to be filled
with “ those who had repented indeed of their sins,
but had not paid the punishment due for them.’T After
this, from St. Christina to Bellarmine, who would be so
unfilial as to leave his father, or even his mother-in-law,
in purgatory ? Out they must come. The devout one
must “raise the wind ” to put out the fire. What man
who has the soul of a man would not pawn his braces;
what woman who has the heart of a woman would not
sell her garters, to get her dear dead out of such a hot
and damnable hole as the purgatory of Bellarmine? It
is set apart, it seems, for those who have repented of
their sins, but have not paid for them. Those who
have neither repented of their sins nor paid for them go
straight to hell; but that matters little : the temperature
* See Catechism on the fifth article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV,
t “ De Genitu Columbse,” bk. ii., ch. ix.
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
5
is only a trifle higher, and a good, round, sound specimen
of a sinner can soon get accustomed to that. The great
thing is the pay. Pay, and it hardly matters a cinder
whether you repent or not. Yours is a grand and noble
Church, Cardinal Manning. It has the knack of getting
all possible moneys out of a man when he is alive, and,
through its purgatory, it can pursue the dead through
the very bottom of the grave, as it were, and shake him,
red-hot, flaming, and shrieking, in the eyes of the friends
he has left, that they may sell their very shirts to relieve
him of his agony. The one paid for leaps out from the
flames into the midst of heaven’s wings and harps, and
the gold and silver ring and rattle into the coffers of the
priest.
The Agnostic, alas, has no such facilities for turning
an honest penny. He does not know God sufficiently
to be able to induce him to enter into the swim with
him to help him to swindle and juggle. It is no use
any one trying to swindle on any exalted and profitable
scale, unless he has got God on his side, and does his
juggling in God’s name. All history and all experience
teach us that lesson with pious emphasis. I have not
God on my side, so all that I get is a little pittance for
my honest toil. I have no way of extracting cash for
the love of harps that have never been strung, and for
the fear of fires that have never been kindled. I am at
this disadvantage for not having acted up to the precepts
of a “religious education.”
Still, O Cardinal, if God be God—if he be noble and
generous and humane—you may stride up to him with
all the wealth and grandeur your Church has acquired,
and I will walk up into his presence with only this year’s
volume of the Secular Review under my arm. And, if
he say, “ Depart from me, ye cursed 1” it will be to you,
O Cardinal, and not to me. He will say, “ Give me a
shake of your hand, Saladin. You searched earnestly
and honestly for me, and could not find me ; but you
see I am here. You often studied and read all day, and
then burned the oil till long after midnight. Without
fee or reward, amid contumely and in obscurity, you
worked out your very life to teach others what you con
ceived to be right and true. To be mistaken, Saladin, is
�6
“religious
education.”
a small thing in the eyes of a God ; but to be honest is a
great thing. Read me some passages from ‘At Random
they are flashes from the immortal soul of a man
struggling in the dark ;• and passages written in the red
blood of an earnest human life are worthy the attention of
a God.”
I am, My Lord Cardinal,
Your Eminence’s
Obedient Servant,
Saladin.
�ADDENDA.
THE CHRISTIAN HEAVEN.
Bishop Croke of Cashell recently mounted the highest
stilts of sacred oratory, and dashed along thus, with his
head in New Jerusalem and his feet in Kildare :—
When we read in the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel according
to St. Luke that “there is more joy in heaven upon one sinner
that doeth penance than upon ninety-nine just who need not
penance,” we may very naturally be expected to say each one
within himself—Sin, then, must sadden God exceedingly, and cast
a gloom, so to speak, over the face of His angels ; because penance
that wipes sin away gives great gladness to God, fills with joy the
whole court of heaven, makes the loveliest seraph there smile yet
more sweetly, and Heaven itself become more heavenly still. Only
just think of it, brethren. There is the great God of the universe
sitting serenely, as we are used to picture him, on his throne of
state on high. Millions and hundreds of millions of angels
brighter far than the sun and infinitely more beautiful than the
moon stand ever-joyous sentinels around him. The ample domain
of,heaven itself, extending far and wide—yea, full many a mile
further than created eye can carry—encompasses him on every side.
It is lit up with lamps that know no dimness, and peopled with
happy spirits that are not destined to die. This earth is but an
atom in their sight. Wars, conflagrations, earthquakes, plague and
famine, and pestilence sweep over and decimate its inhabitants, and
Heaven heeds not the ruin that is tints made. Yet, strange to say,
one man, a poor weak worm of the earth, living on it, born of it,
and destined to return to it again in death, trangresses a law that
had been given to him by God for his guidance—thereby commit
ting sin—and behold the heart of the Most High is saddened, a
cloud comes across the countenance of his angels, and heaven itself
seems to be heaven no more. But, see, that same man repents;
that sinner is converted ; that rebel hand raised in pride against
the Almighty is uplifted no more, and, as the herald of God’s mercies
to man proclaims the glad tidings aloud, the music of heaven’s
choir becomes sweeter still; the light of heaven’s lamps becomes
brighter still ; the face of heaven’s angels becomes more smiling
still, for there is more joy in heaven upon one sinner that does
penance than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.
�8
ADDENDA,
You see into that passage in Luke the Archbishop
has got his papist “penance” inserted where the
Protestant version has “repentance.” With the Pro
testant, “penance” is an heretical abomination. But
you observe the “word of God” is so explicit and simple
that it means either, or both, or neither. This vague
ambiguity is a distinguishing feature of divine writing.
If a man were to lose his reason, he could write tolerably
like God; and a man who has lost his reason, or who,
as is usually the case, had never any to lose, understands
best what God has been graciously pleased to write.
“ Sin,” according to Croke, and of course he knows
all about it, must “sadden God exceedingly.” A “sad”
deity, God-in-the-dumps, sitting on the white throne,
with all the beasts roaring “ Holy, holy, holy 1” and
glaring at him with the eyes they have in their tails and
their elbows, convinces me that Augustus Harris will
never produce a really effective pantomime at Drury
Lane till he has had the advantage of spending a week
in heaven. Would the great Croke, who seems to know
heaven and its denizens so intimately, inform me whether
the hebdomadal issue of this journal can “sadden God
exceedingly ” ? I know of no god, and I prefer to know
of none till I find one magnanimous and mighty enough
not to get “sad” at the writings of a weak mortal like
Saladin, or be pleased with the ranting but pious blarney
of a little sermon-spinner like Croke.
God used to be unchangeable. But that was in the
good old days, before Ireland and Croke were invented.
Now he gets “sad” whenever anybody sins; but grins
from ear to ear, and kicks up his holy heels with delight,
whenever anybody does penance. Pretty sudden and
fiequent transitions these for an unchangeable God.
But the authority is very high—the authority of his
friend, Croke of Cashel.
u
am „really sorry f°r
P00r dear angels with the
gloom on their faces. I once had a notion of becom
ing an angel myself by imitating, say, David, the man
“according to God’s own heart.” But now I give up
the project. There would always be somebody sinning,
and so my face would always be clouded with “gloom,”
except when somebody did penance—the only thing, by
�THE CHRISTIAN HEAVEN.
9
the-bye, that seems to throw a gleam of light into heaven.
This “ gloom ” would never do for me; I like a good
laugh now and again; and I can laugh, too, a loud hurri
cane of a laugh that shakes the rafters. So I will relin
quish my design of becoming an angel by imitating
David, and thereby some Uriah and some Joab will
escape murder and some Bathsheba dishonour.
Lord, how Croke does hit off heaven with only a few
spasms of his voice—the best voice going at wild rant
and mad tapsalteerie. Perhaps “ the loveliest seraphs
there would smile yet more sweetly” if I could get
beside them to tell them tales of heroic W allace instead
of stories about timid Jesus. By my halidome, I should
like to strut up the golden street—although I should
much rather stand up to the hurdies in Scottish heather
—and fling the strains of my mountain harp into the
ears of the belles of heaven. If they have blood in their
veins, I should send it tingling to the tips of their toes
and their wings. I should make the lyre of Caledonia
weep and moan and thunder and dirl till the harps that
hung on the willows by the streams of Babel would be
broken up and cast away.
Dr. Croke’s heaven, which is intended to be so attrac
tive to good Catholics and Land-Leaguers, does not
tempt me. I do not feel at all attracted to a great
ogre of a God, sitting on “ his throne of state on high,”
while “ millions and hundreds of millions of angels,
brighter far than the sun, and infinitely more beautiful
than the moon,” stand around him as “ sentinels.”
“ Sentinels,” indeed ! Surely these millions of angels
might be better employed. Millions of these celestial
monsters with wings, but whose tails are never men
tioned, stand “sentinel,” like the big horsemen at White
hall. Before I can be got to be really enamoured of
heaven, I should like to know how its flying monsters
get along without tails. A tail is to a bird what a rudder
is to a ship. I should like to be assured, before I consent
to go to heaven, that an angel can steer its course
accurately without a tail. I do not wish to go there and
incur the risk of some great, flying idiot coming dashing
up against me and knocking the teeth out of my head,
with a “Beg your pardon, Sir—pure accident; had
�IO
ADDENDA.
intended to fly to that there rafter 1” Besides, if these
angels are “ brighter far than the sun/’ I could not look
upon their splendour; so I should shortly be blind as
well as toothless.
In spite of the tremendous effulgence of Dr. Croke’s
angels, I observe that heaven is “lit up with lamps.”
Seeing that, in brilliance, every angel must be equal to
at least fifty sperm candles, I fail to see the use of the
lamps ; and I fear, as a canny Scot, I should demur
at the holy extravagance and the divine waste of paraffin.
At all events, fitting heaven up with lamps does not, as
far as I am concerned, add to its charms. There you
sit, pen in hand, all silent as death ■ and you in obstetric
t roes with one of your biggest thoughts, when crack
goes the glass chimney of the said lamp, and, in your
state of concentrated intensity, nearly startles your life
out. Besides, lamps are constantly getting upset, and,
if I were to upset one upon Sarah’s skirts or Rahab’s
polonaise, the effects might disconcert all heaven.
Besides, in trimming the wick, I usually burn my fingers,
and when I burn my fingers I usually swear ; and a good,
rattling malediction might tempt some outraged seraph
to throw me over heaven’s battlements into' the other
place, hurling the lamp after me.
But, O Bishop of Cashel, can all these millions
of angels find nothing better to do than to “stand
sentinel ” ? It may be all glory and brilliance with
;
but there are lanes and alleys with us where it is all
misery and gloom. The sties of Seven Dials are filled
with guilt and misery; over the fever slums of White
chapel falls the Shadow of Death.
Where are the
hundreds of millions of angels? From the dens of
Want and Stench and Disease rises the cry of Humanity;
but that cry reaches not the ears of the angels. Un
moved, they stand sentinel round their ogre God. Not
one angel breaks away from the phalanx to help the
gallant soul beaten down in life’s struggle, to drive away
want and shame from the home of the widow, to give
shelter to the destitute and bread to the fatherless.
The father which art in heaven ” cannot spare one
angel out of his hundreds of millions to visit his children
in mercy, and allay the gnawings of hunger and the pain
�THE CHRISTIAN HEAVEN.
11
of the heart that aches in misery. The music of every
harp, the sheen of every wing, is wanted “ for his own
glory.” No angel can be spared to stand between the
maiden and the deceiver. No angel can be sent for a
moment to kiss the desperately-parted lips and smooth
down the wildly-dishevelled hair of her, the lost and
ruined, as she mounts the parapet of the bridge to leap
from the street and Shame into the river and Death.
No angel comes down with the lightning in his hand to
strike the rich man dead as, by dint of his gold, from
the pale arms of Famine he forces the embraces of
Love.
A hundred thousand men, in uniform, are struggling
in yonder valley. A chorus goes to hell of the yells
of madness, the groans of anguish, and the screams of
agony. The gulf of smoke is torn by torrents and bursts
of fire, and shaken by louder than the thunders of
God. Weary with slaughter, his feet entangled in his
brother’s entrails, the powder-blackened madman falls.
He clutches at the red grass and the heaps of reeking
butchery, and gurgles and gasps and drowns in his
brother’s blood. And the horror and the agony are not
all here. Circling away into the busy towns, the quiet
villages, the corn fields, and the apple orchards of other
lands, extends the tide of misery and woe. Far away
from the field of carnage, hunger overtakes the orphan
child. The aged mother has lost her son, and the
young girl her lover. Over hundreds of leagues of the
world rises the voice of mourning and lamentation and
woe. Damn the heartless god that required all his idle
angels when his children down here went mad 1 Out of
the vast multitude, could he spare not a single one to
stand between these two hosts, and stay that hurricane
of lead; not one to stop these levelled bayonets and
that crunch of steel—that grinding of the bloody wheels
of the mills of Death ?
Is this God—this omnipotent fiend who could make
us, his poor children on earth here, holy and happy, and
will not ? Then let me, his son, flee from such a father
to the uttermost rim of the universe. Is this heaven,
where immortals stand as a retinue of sentinels, unmoved
by the tears of man’s misery and the cries of human
�12
ADDENDA.
pain ? Is this heaven—the happiest sphere we are to
enter when the gate of the grave closes behind us ? Then
proclaim it from the housetops that there is no heaven,
that all that is is a universal hell, and that man is the
plaything of an inscrutable fiend.
When will gushing gospel-mongers learn that, in spite
of its “loveliest seraphs” smiling as sweetly as they can
be made to do in Bishop Croke’s pious rhetoric, heaven
is not good enough for nineteenth-century men and
women. It did ■well enough as a more or less delirious
day-dream for centuries that are no more, for those who
have Jain in the grave so long that it would require
chemical analysis to distinguish the marrow of thefemorbone from the rust of the coffin-nail.
Shades of the dead, whose essence, in a sublime
panontism, has gone to feed the tissues of the universe,
we mean no disrespect to you when we reject your heaven.
It is upon the mountain,formed by the bonesofa departed
world, we stand, in order to see further than that departed
world ever saw. It is not the cerebration inside our indivi
dual skull, but the fact of our standing upon a more than
Tamerlane pyramid of skulls, that throws our vision
further down the vista of Mystery. The former coral
zoophytes laid their deposits on the sea-bed and under the
wave; on their deposits we place ours, thanks to them,
not in the dark like theirs, but up in the light, where the
sun shines, where the clouds roll and unroll, where the
wind blows and the billows thunder and s ing. We are
no longer away down among heavens and hells, the rocks
and algae of the ocean’s floor, but up in the light, where
the sea-birds scream, where the blue smoke from our
hearth melts away calmly over the deep green of the
trees, where the waters are wooed by olive boughs and
kissed by riparian myrtles, and flowers fling the glory of
their fragrance over the lake of the atoll.
Away with your heaven and other submarine night
mares of the world before sunrise. All hail a new
heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness !
Emerged at length from the deep, we are religious, but
our religion has burst asunder the fetters of your
theology; we are pious, but we visit your temples with
fire and desolation ; we are worshipful, but we urge on the
car of Progress over the shattered fragments of your gods.
�CHIVALRY.
13
CHIVALRY.
They knelt ’fore the altar’s gilded rail,
The beautiful and the brave,
In the dim old abbey down in the vale,
O’er high-born dust in the grave.
And martyr holy and tortured saint
Were limned on the glorious pane,
And the sunbeams threw on the carvings quaint
A golden and crimson stain.
And the organ peal shook the dead in their grave,
And the incense smoke died away
Down the dim-lit chancel and solemn nave
Where the dead in their marble lay.
The orange wreath in the morning’s breath,
And the warrior’s nodding plume,
In the hoary cloister smiled at Death
And the warp and the weft of Doom.
And the noblest blood in the land was there—
The chivalrous sword and mail;
And the naked breasts of the Norman fair
Throbbed around that altar’s rail.
And the father leant on his battle brand,
And the mother dropped a tear,
And De Wilton’s Edith laid her hand
In the gauntlet of De Vere.
And the bridal ring and the muttered words,
And the gems and the plumes of pride,
And the whispers low, and the clank of swords,
And De Wilton’s girl was a bride.
*
*
*
*
Heir to wide lands, she bore him a son
On a sweet and a silent day :
Where the breach was won, and lost, and won,
De Wilton was far away.
�14
addenda.
And he wore her glove by his mangled plume
And her kiss on his lip still lay,
1
nd his blade flashed dread as the bolt of Doom
From the morn till the noon of day.
Wherever raved wildest the storm of blades,
And the red rain bloodiest fell
Wherever thickest the troops of shades
Were hurled to the realms of Hell
°e Vere’s blue flag with his Edith’s hair
Waved in the reeling van,
And rose and fell, ’mid groan and yell,
In the chaos of horse and man.
It sank at last in the hurricane
That raged round the knights of De Vere
And the world span round his reeling brain ’
Laid bare by a foeman’s spear.
Hearts rained out blood, helms glinted fire
Mid the death groan and hurraa •
An^ kn,ghthood’s pride toiled, tugged, and died
Wheie the spangled banner lay.
For Edith s hair on that broidered soy
Lay trampled in dust and gore;
And Rudolph had sworn to bear it with joy
bo her bower or return no more.
He sprang with a shout from the reeling sod
A gash on his helmless brow,
Raised his red hand aloft to God,
And hissed his dauntless vow :
“Ye saints,” quoth he, “this soy’s my shroud,
Or I bear it to Edith again !”■_
_
BUA.^ld
tbe burst of the thunder-cloud,
Or the dash of the roaring main,
The foe swept on ten thousand strong
O’er Rudolph’s wounded ten;
&
quakes, the mountain shakes
Neath the tramp of armed men.
And vassal thralls with husky cheer
Rush o’er the banner fair,
�CHIVALRY.
15
The blazoned scutcheon of De Vere
And Edith’s golden hair.
Firm faced the host the glorious ten
For Edith, God, and Home—
Swung the angry sea of ten thousand men—
Dashed the battle’s bloody foam.
*
*
*
*
His horse lay on the carnage ground,
Upon that flag of woe ;
His mangled vassals lay around,
And Rudolph lay below,
’Mid battered helm and shivered lance,
And corslet, helm, and glave;
And all the wrecks of War’s wild dance
When waltzing to the grave.
*
*
*
*
Sighed o’er the field the young morn’s breath :
The foemen found him there,
His pale lips pressed in ghastly death
To Edith’s crimsoned hair.
They laid him down by the side of her bed,
The monks who his body bore;
His eyes had the glare of the eyes of the dead,
His armour was dyed in gore.
A friar essayed the ladye to cheer
Jn the mournful tidings of ill;
But the faithful heart of the bride of De Vere
Ever, forever was still.
Though the babe still lay on the high, white breast
That milk to its dear lips gave,—Years laid him again on that bosom to rest,
When he fell in the ranks of the brave. ’
*
*
*
*
She followed her lord to the halls of God
Ere that sorrowful day was done;
For her lord had died on the trampled sod :
To a corpse she had borne her son.
�i6
ADDENDA.
Now the sire and the dame and their gallant boy
All rest ’neath the marble there,
And over them waves the banner of soy,
With Edith’s blood-stained hair.
And swords have clashed to the valiant tale,
And the voice of the minstrel sung,
How fair were the maids, how deadly the blades,
When the heart of the world was young !
price Twopence.
Every Thursday.
THE
SECULAR
REVIEW:
A JOURNAL OF AGNOSTICISM.
EDITED BY SALADIN.
Order of your Newsagent, or send direct to the Publishers—W.
Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, London. E.C.
HISTORICAL PAMPHLETS.
A Reply to Cardinal Manning, by Saladin ...
...
The Crusades, by Saladin
...
...
...
The Covenanters, by Saladin
...
...
...
Christian Persecution, by Saladin ...
...
...
The Flagellants, by Saladin
...
...
...
The Iconoclasts, by Saladin
...
...
...
The Inquisition, Part I., by Saladin
...
...
The Inquisition, Part II., by Saladin
...
...
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part I., by Saladin
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part II., bySaladin
The Persecution of the Jews, Part I., by Saladin
...
The Persecution of the Jews, Part II., by Saladin
...
01
o 1
o x
o x
o x
o x
0 I
o 1
o 1
o 1
01
01
London : W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
"Religious education" : a letter to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ross, William Stewart [1844-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 3 v. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Ross's reply to a sermon preached by Cardinal Manning on 26 September, 1885. Includes bibliographical references. "by Saladin" [title page]. Saladin is the pseudonym of William Stewart Ross. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W. Stewart & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N595
N596
N597
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work ("Religious education" : a letter to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Henry Edward Manning
NSS
Religious Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/101938dd9e0facf4ade0f83430e45edf.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=caXeRrG%7EU0SrbcNw3%7EmyoCdG7AXAKmU2p9YDynnzh5Ij7DMjLg8n8OBO14WoWmles%7EXUZEuZ-x7oJGQOYT2VXl%7EohZQ9ql0IINC2Cdcm3c0FbikZio-nF4HZOvHsPFTHrd3RDiakuZBfAMOPrzrSx-voQTqfVI6fCVO46grTT5vvGznuY3eaVv3Uoag8xy07WGmV393R-ZdkSTpwoC30ivyrGjeY3gHFAxYVphoJE0liFhYVIC9uU8FPAJg8Jc2vv%7EtosQMTKNiLknH-H5SlTD8f5%7E9hD4rj5Roe0gdVWhj3nWam5sAf75akAsgR53zIrKIBxWRR9L1C5lB8vwxk2g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6529aa5171443a639aa4ab9de0dc1b2a
PDF Text
Text
I
CHRISTIANITY AND EDUCATION
IN INDIA.
LECTURE
A
DELIVERED AT ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LONDON,
NOVEMBER 12, 1871.
BY
A.
JYRAM
ROW,
OF MYSORE.
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
SCOTT,
�»ae
�HINDU
EDUCATION.
Ladies and Gentlemen,—The subject we are come
together this evening to consider is one, the import
ance of which it is scarce possible to estimate too
highly. Viewed in its integrity—in the vastness of
the interests at stake on its proper solution—interests,
not simply of a speculative character, but as connected
with the destinies of a considerable portion of man
kind, I should be more sanguine than wise if I
flattered myself that I could do the barest justice
to it.
Agitated as is the human mind in our times with
thousands of questions, more or less directly bearing
on human advancement, I know none more exciting
in their immediate interest, more momentous in their
ultimate results, in short, more imperative in their
demand on our deepest attention, than those which
have for their solution the complicated phenomena of
social science. Of these, the subject of education, it
will be conceded on all hands, must ever stand out
prominently as the question of questions.
But it is not the question of education in general
that I propose to myself, but the more circumscribed
one of Hindu education. I propose to bring before
you the present state of education in India, its short
comings, and the nature of the emendations it stands
in need of, if it is to succeed at all in the object for
which it has been undertaken. I may further pre
mise that I shall deal with the subject, not only in
its bearings on the regeneration of India, but also in
�4
Christianity and Education in India.
its wider relations to the advancement of science and
the promotion of human welfare in general.
It is well known that in India there are two
systems of education working side by side,—the one
secular and the other religious,—the one conducted
by the Government, the other by Christian Mis
sionaries sent out by this country for the conversion
of the Hindus. Now to take the last first.
rar be it from me to ignore the noble spirit that
supports this enterprise; and farther still to traduce
wantonly, or speak in a spirit of levity of, anything
connected with it. So long as these magnificent
efforts on your part at self-sacrifice are made under
the conviction that we, pagans and heathens, are lost
uidess brought to embrace your faith, and bend our
knees to your idols; so long, I repeat, we cannot be
too grateful. But sooner or later the truth must out,
and, I am sure, you will bear with me, if my very
gratitude for what you are doing for us compels me
to speak candidly the bare unvarnished truth on the
subject. I can conscientiously state, then, and every
one who has any personal knowledge of India will bear
me out in this statement, that Christianity, in spite
of all the efforts of all its zealous apostles, has not
succeeded, and is never likely to succeed, in the land of
the Hindus. It is a notorious fact that, notwith
standing the unremitted operation now nearly for a
century of a vast machinery, specially designed for
this purpose, and worked under the most favourable
auspices, Christianity cannot name its proselytes from
any part of the more intelligent and educated classes
of our community whose total number at any time
could not be counted on one’s fingers. Not less
notorious is the fact that nine hundred and ninetynine out of every thousand of the converted Hindus
are from the very dregs, the Parias, of our population.
There is scarcely, too, one in a thousand among them
who can so much as conceive the simplest points of
�Christianity and Education in India.
5
divergence between the faith he has abandoned and
the faith he has embraced.
The rationale of this inevitable state of things is
not very far to seek. The whole of the Hindu com
munity, for our present purpose, may be divided into
four classes, not in accordance with the ordinary
distinction of castes, but with the mental peculiarities
observable among them. Our first division will com
prise those who have received no education, either
English or Hindu ; the second, those who possess an
elementary knowledge of English, with a tolerable
acquaintance with their own literature; while the
third shall hold together those who, not being satis
fied with the rudiments of education vouchsafed them
by their thrifty Government, have pushed their
curiosity into the forbidden precincts of science, as
far, at least, as their unassisted efforts might avail
them, and have made themselves familiar, if not with
the more recondite truths and processes of its various
departments, at least with their general results, and
the more fundamental methods of inductive investiga
tion. There remains now the fourth class to cha
racterize, which, after the above assignments, must
evidently consist of those Hindus who, though devoid
of English education, and a knowledge of European
science, are yet the repositories of all that is highest
and soundest in Hindu philosophy and Hindu science,
such as they may be. Now to review each class, in
order, in its relations to Christianity and the possible
points of contact between them, where alone the
latter might exert any influence.
We have seen that the characteristic of our first
division is the absence of all education. And hence
the presence of ignorance in unmitigated intensity.
Now ignorance and superstition must ever go
hand in hand.
The rampant extravagances of the
latter are a necessary consequence of the former.
The same faculty of analogical reasoning, which
�6
„
Christianity and Education in India.
under due subordination to wide inductions and
subject to continued processes of verification or correc
tion, results in the highest triumphs of science, leads,
in the absence of these safeguards, to the grossest
fallacies of thought and belief. Fetishism is a natural
concomitant of this stage of our mental development.
There is no place here for either metaphysical or
positive conceptions. There is as little possibility of
metaphysical abstractions making impression upon the
dim consciousness of ignorance, as of the comprehen
sive generalisations of positive science being grasped
by its narrow faculties.
Hence the only religion
possible at this stage is the religion of sense. The
more sensuous the conceptions, the more tangible the
images presented for adoration, the firmer is their
hold upon the ignorant mind. The slightest infusion
of anything like abstraction is eschewed and thrown
out as unassimilable with its simple organisation. Now
Christianity, with its medley of dogmas and theories,
half fetishistic, half metaphysical, has far less chance of
success here than a religion that is purely fetishistic.
The one is easy of comprehension to the most un
tutored mind; while the other bristles up with
inconsistencies incapable of reconciliation by the
subtlest intellect. Further, if sensuous accessories
are at all requisite, stocks and stones, idols and
oracles, are far better helps to devotion than the
pulpit or the priest—the surplice or the sermon.
But independently of the intrinsic unfitness of
Christianity, the conduct of the missionary is scarce
better fitted to ensure success. It is very rarely that
he masters the vernaculars sufficiently to make him
self easily intelligible to his native audience. Even
where this superlative merit is achieved by the
grumbling apostle, he scarce forgets the whiteness of
his skin, his easy five hundred a year, or his com
fortable bungalow, with its pankas and tattees, when
he sees the dark masses rolling on before him,
�Christianity and Education in India.
7
doomed to work under a tropical sun. When he
addresses himself to them, perhaps once in a week,
and for half an hour in a thoroughfare, he is full as
conscious of his superiority as when lolling on
cushioned sofas in the luxurious abandonment of a
midday repose ; or when driving his beautiful phaeton
and pair of an evening through fashionable walks, to
enjoy the glories of a setting sun or the grateful
breezes of approaching night. It is beneath him to
mix with them freely—to talk to them familiarly—
and therefore to understand how to influence their
minds effectually. Is it a matter of surprise, then,
if his hebdomadal harangues, more remarkable for
periodic sententiousness and dramatic accompani
ments of voice and gesture, than earnestness of
purpose or common sense, should fall on careless ears ?
And yet this is the class from which the ranks of
Hindu Christianity are oftenest supplied. We have
seen there is nothing specially adapted in the new
religion, nor anything specially attractive in the
behaviour of the missionaries to bring about such a
result. Is it then an easy frame of mind in these
ignorant Hindus or their indifference that supplies
the explanation? No, they are bigoted enough and
tenacious too, like other Hindus, in what they consider
to be right, not to succumb to ordinary influences.
It is their poverty, or vitiated course of life, that
makes them take refuge in a change of social con
dition. The converted Hindu is always provided for
by Christian munificence, if not in every case liberally,
at least in a way to satisfy every reasonable demand
of nature. Can you wonder, then, if a few unfortu
nate or unprincipled Hindus would gladly take
shelter under a religion that does not leave the poor to
starve, nor compel the idle to work. But this same
supply which feeds expiring Christianity in India,
and gives it for a time a delusive appearance of
vitality and growth, carries with it, in reality, in'
B
�8
Christianity and Education in India.
evitable seeds of decay and death. The contempt
and disgust, which these dissipated and ignorant
wretches engender in every mind, are in themselves
a sufficient bar to its progress among the better
classes.
But enough of this. Let us proceed to our second
division—those Hindus, namely, who have received
a tolerably good English education, and are therefore
in a position to come more directly under the influence
of the Missionaries. Do these, at least, profit by the
light so considerately proffered them ? I am afraid
the position of Christianity is more hopeless here
than in the last case. I am afraid what is recom
mended to them as light, is looked upon by them
more as an ignis fatuus, decoying them to deeper
sloughs of error and superstition, than as an unmis
takable beacon leading to the calm haven of truth.
Whatever defects may have been laid at our door by
European opinionists, intelligence at any rate—at
least one kind of intelligence—has never been denied
us, even by the boldest amongst them. It is nothing
strange, therefore, if the same exercise of faculties which
leads the inquiring Hindu to question his own beliefs,
leads him also to question others recommended in their
stead. Once the spirit of Scepticism roused in him,
he knows no moderation. In his eyes authority be
comes mockery—faith impotence.
Free from the
magic of superstition, he becomes conscious of his
own strength. No dogma is too sacred—no explana
tion too plausible, to escape his rude challenge.
Hence, it is easy to conceive what treatment Christi. anity, with its manifold defects, has to expect from
his tender mercies. He pounces upon the thousand
metaphysical difficulties which surround its doctrines
and which have puzzled the ingenuity of its highest
philosophers, without being brought one step nearer to
a satisfactory solution. Nay, he rips open its very
fundamental conceptions, dragging to light every
�Christianity and Education in India.
9
•inconsistency, inconsequence, and self-contradiction
lurking or enshrined therein; while their helpless
champion, trembling with horror but unable to stop
this work of vandalism, wonders if heaven’s wrath
had spent its lightnings.
Meantime, the havoc pro
ceeds. The shattered images crowd on every side,—
the different attributes of the Godhead, so necessary
to Christian Orthodoxy, but so irreconcilable with
one another, and, therefore, incapable of predication
together; the strange doctrine of prayer, so useless if
God be just, so impious, so blasphemous, if it implies
his openness to flattery or adulation ; the enjoined
duty of a simultaneous belief in Predestination and
Free-Will, an impossibility both of thought and fact;
the necessity of inherited sin, and salvation through
the sufferings of an innocent God, a conception more
allied to wild caprice or wanton blood-thirstiness,
than any notion of justice or equity possible to hu
man intelligence, and yet a conception constituting
the essence of a Christian’s speciality as respects the
other believers in the Unknown and Unknowable: and
to crown all, this very salvation, worked through
centuries of human suffering and crowned with the
sufferings of a God, proving no salvation to the
greater part of mankind, who could scarce help
wondering if it might not be a deception of the
unholy Spirit working in the dark for our ruin: a
scheme, in short, so clumsy and unavailing, though
brought out in such wanton defiance of every law,
natural and moral, and worked with all the tentative
skill of Supreme Wisdom, improving upon itself
through experience of five thousand years, that it
leaves as much sin, suffering, and ignorance now in
the world as when it found them; a scheme, in fine,
which even human pride might blush to own.
Such is a rough sketch of the pugilistic skill of our
Hindu controversialist of the second class. 'If he
bares his breast to the fist of his antagonist, he ex-
�io
Christianity and Education in India.
acts a like courtesy from the opposite side. He knows
not the meekness that would present you the second
cheek to smite, when you have smitten the first.
But this would not do. This is contrary to all
acknowledged precedents and rules of Missionary
warfare in all heathen lands. Give but not receive,
is its motto ; and it is not our modern Missionary
that would derogate from his dignity as an infallible
mouthpiece of Pure Wisdom so low as to forget this
excellent precept. But whether from this motive or
from a lurking suspicion in his own breast that
“ Something is rotten jn the state of Denmark,” it is
a significant fact, the Missionary ever avoids an
educated Hindu. Though the conversion of one such
would be far more favourable to his cause than that of
a thousand ignorant unprincipled wretches, he never
attempts to convert him. It is almost ludicrous to
see the studious solicitude with which the anxious
apostle shuns all contact with him as with a dreaded
imp of evil. But unfortunately, as ill luck sometimes
would have it, his care is not always successful. Very
often some enterprising Hindu ferrets him out actual
ly to pay off for many a blow and poisoned shaft
aimed at him and his beliefs from behind his back.
And then, when once they are brought face to face,
the former, in whose constitution a love of contro
versy may almost be said to be hereditary, and now
smarting too from a sense of injury, hurls at his
antagonist every objection in its most damaging shape
with all the ingenuity of a Hindu brain; while the
latter, goaded to the quick and surprised out of his
usual reserve, but unable to maintain even a show of
contest, either flies into a passion, which is worse than
defeat, or gets entangled in platitudes, which produce
only mischievous merriment in his opponent.
But this is not all. The educated Hindoo, however
ignorant of science himself, does not fail to see,—and
living as he does in the nineteenth century can he
�Christianity and Education in India.
11
help seeing?—that the identical faith, which is so
strongly recommended for his adoption in India, is
exposed to a life-and-death struggle from the rapid
advances of science in the very land of its highest
triumphs, in the very cradle of its early successes.
Under these circumstances, is it not a matter of course
that the intelligent Hindoo should not rush forward
blindly to embrace what seems to him not only the
losing, but the erroneous side ?
If then Christianity has no chance, as we have seen,
with our first and second classes, how much more
unlikely is it that it should succeed with the third,
which comprises the most advanced amongst us:—those, that is, who combine, to a knowledge of the
English Language, a tolerable acquaintance with the
results of modern science and the principal processes
of its investigations ? It is not those, who have learnt
to regard the constancy and uniformity of Nature aa
the highest dicta of experience and the only foundation
of sure knowledge, that would accept your arbitrary
interpositions, sudden suspensions, and unnatural
intersections of natural laws, as any thing more than
the vagaries of a morbid imagination.
It is not
those, who have learnt to trace the operation of un
alterable causes, not only in the progressive develop
ment of life, not only in the gradual formation of our
globe, nor yet only in the slow emergence of the
system to which it belongs, but quite as well in the
general evolution of the whole universe in all its
details, and from times reaching backwards beyond
the power of calculation, that would believe them to
have failed or been set aside during one insignificant
life-time, on one insignificant spot of earth, for the
immediate benefit of one insignificant [art of one
insignificant race. It is not such, therefore, that
would swallow, at the bidding of the missionary, any
miracles that it might please him or his book to pro
pound. It is not down the throats of such that the
�12
Christianity and Education in India.
missionary may hope to cram his speaking donkeys
and suns that stand paralysed in their course. Nay,
they would not condescend even to wonder at the
existence of such beliefs in our times. To them,
credulity begot of ignorance and fostered by prejudice
supplies the necessary explanation.
But their position does not stop here. Armed
with positive knowledge, and commanding every
avenue to error, they fear not to charge into the
heart of the enemies’ camp. Their lance is at rest for
no ordinary prize. It seeks the heart-blood—the
sine qua non—of all superstition and error. In other
words, they join issue with their opponents on the
question of those very beliefs, without which not only
Christianity, but every other religion, in the usual
meaning of the term, becomes impossible. They con
tend, in short, that the popular idea, that what we
call the soul or mind is an independent entity, a some
thing quite distinct from the body and capable of
existence without it; and the supplementary notion,
that there is a conscious personal being, who is the
creator and ruler of the universe; are, to say the least
of it, notions which find support neither in nature
nor in reason.
Instead, therefore, of Christianity making any pro
gress among our third class Hindus, they are more
likely to contribute to its final and general rejection
by their countrymen.
But what of the fourth division 1
With the
Hindus belonging to this class at least, it might be
imagined, there must be better hope.
Neither
acquainted with modern science nor blind to the
gross superstitions common among their less educated
brethren, they must surely be more favourably
disposed to receive Christianity if properly presented
to them. Unfortunately for the cause of unfounded
hopes, the probabilities once more go hard against
such fond anticipations. The state of society in India,
�Christianity and Education in India.
13
in respect of beliefs and principles of action is, and
has been for a long time, very much like what that of
Greece and Rome used to be in their palmiest days.
In Rome and Greece, we know, the beliefs of the
higher and more educated classes—of their so-called
philosophers—had very little in common with the
superstitions of their less advanced countrymen. If
they tolerated them, or rather if they seemed them
selves to share in them, it was only from prudential,
self-interested considerations. They knew, too, that
all men could not be philosophers, nor was it desirable
that all should be. Something very similar to this
obtains now in Hindu Society. The Philosophers
or Pundits of India are not what they seem. If they
encourage the popular beliefs, it is purely from motives
of policy and self-interest. Their philosophy is too
subtle for the mass, nor is it their interest to
popularize it. They are the priests of the nation ;
and you know how everywhere the priests are jealous
of knowledge among any but themselves.
Their
power everywhere is in a direct ratio to the ignorance
around them.
Accordingly the Brahmin has two
schools—the esoteric and the exoteric, the one full of
ceremonies, prayers, penances, with all the remaining
paraphernalia of religious denomination, the other, of
philosophic discussions relative to the explanation of
the phenomena of the universe. The former is meant
to satisfy the wild cravings of untutored imagination
and utilize the emotional energies of aboriginal nature
for purposes of social economy; while the . latter
furnishes gratifications to choicer spirits seeking in
tellectual luxuries and contemplative repose.
Now of all the systems of philosophy I have any
knowledge of—whether the systems of ancient Greece
and Rome, the Peripatetic, the Sceptic, or the Epicu
rean ; their later developments in those of the schools ;
or still later forms—the modern systems of Kant,
Cousin, and Hamilton—I have no hesitation in pro-
�14
Christianity and Education in India.
nouncing the Vadantic philosophy of the Hindus the
most logical and profound. It makes the nearest ap
proach, I know of any, to the strict requirements of
modern scientific thought. In its fundamental aspects,
it is enough to add here, it resembles the system of
Mill and Bain.
It is a. well-known fact that Buddhism, in its origi
nal purity, was an offshoot of Hindu philosophy.
Buddha, who was familiar with its deepest mysteries,
but who. endeavoured to organize them into a religion,
was obliged, evidently to meet the grosser apprehen
sion of the masses, to make a compromise between the
requirements of logical precision and the necessities of
a practical reduction. It was accordingly an abortion
between philosophy and religion ; an unsuccessful
attempt to reconcile the rational and emotional natures
of man. It would neither satisfy the conditions of
pure reason, nor give scope to the full play of feeling.
And yet this system, abortive as it manifestly is, has
been pronounced,, even by European critics, the most
rational religion in the world. How much greater
must be the superiority then, of that philosophy over
all religions, of which Buddhism is but an offshoot,
and an inferior offshoot too !
There is.one circumstance connected with this phil
osophy which at first has a very misleading effect: I
mean the peculiarly difficult and almost mystical
phraseology in which its doctrines are couched. But
this, far from, being a demerit, ought to constitute a
recommendation in its favour, since it enabled the
enunciation of the subtlest and profoundest truths in a
language singularly consistent, accurate, and powerful.
Anything more than a hasty glance at some of its
principal features would be not only out of place, but
would demand far more space and time than can be
afforded in a lecture like this. I shall select, therefore,
a few salient points for comparison.
The Berkleyan theory of what is improperly called
�Christianity and Education in India.
15
Idealism, which reduces both the objective and subjec
tive worlds to Permanent Possibilities of Sensation,
and which is beyond doubt the most logical theory
yet conceived by the European intellect, is distinctly
stated, and enforced by powerful reasoning in this
Philosophy of the Hindus, now so many centuries old.
When it enunciates the grand truth that the internal
and external worlds are merely the varying manifesta
tions of oue and the same principle ‘ Maya,’ the
ignorant dabbler in Hindu philosophy translates the
word in its ordinary acceptation, and pronounces the
doctrine absurd. If he had only the patience to master
the language in which it is closed before jumping to a
conclusion, he would find that, as in English or any
other language, the popular and philosophic significa
tions of words are different, and sometimes almost
contradictory. The ordinary meaning of ‘Maya’ is
certainly delusion, but the philosophic value of it is as
certainly—the system of phenomena in contradistinc
tion to noumena—the totality of existence, real and
potential, regarded as possible or actual groups of sen
sations. So that the theory of ‘ Maya,’ as it is gene
rally called, is far from being what it is ignorantly
taken for. On the contrary, it is the enunciation of
the doctrines of the school of Mill and Bain in strict
philosophical language.
The modern theory of evolution, again, is plainly
shadowed forth in this philosophy, where it resolves
the first cause, not into an unmeaning change of
expression—“ a guiding and controlling intelligence”
—but into a principle, unconscious, self-existent, and
ever-changing—a principle of which concrete existence
in all its varieties is only an expression of varying
aspects. Thus the only First Cause that this philosophy
recognizes, is the first cause also of modern science—
matter with its properties.
One more point worthy of notice here is the theory
of necessity or fate. The first cause itself is subject to
�16
Christianity and Education in India.
it; rather necessity is itself one of its properties. Hence
it followed also that everything in the universe, being
but a manifestation of the first principle, is equally
necessary in respect of its co-existence or sequence.
This doctrine, it will be seen, is nothing more nor less
than the general uniformity and constancy of nature
which forms the ground-work of science. It is true
this doctrine, under the name of Asiatic Fatalism, has
been ridiculed by persons who neither understood its
unassailable foundation in fact, nor could distinguish
between its legitimate consequences, awful enough, to
confuse their narrow apprehension, and the illegiti
mate or unnecessary ones imported into the question
by their own incapable reasonings. But however
ignorantly ridiculed, or whatever preposterous effects
have been ascribed to it, the doctrine itself stands up
a sublime monument of Hindu thought at a time when
even the bulk of educated intellects of Europe are not
prepared for its intelligent reception.
Even the common version of the Hindu Trinity
is a fallacy of misconception. The popular notion of
the three deities—Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva is
merely a flesh and-blood personification of the three
fundamental generalisations of our philosophy, of the
universe. These are respectively the constructive, the
restorative, and the degenerative or destructive prin
ciples in nature. They were no doubt suggested by
a careful observation of the operations of natural
agencies around us. Their truth is now acknowledged
by all, and requires no special amplification. Only it
deserves to be remarked how even such a simple belief
of the uneducated Hindu as that in the three gods,
turns out to be merely a stultification of the wisdom
of his philosophers, who centuries ago recognised
principles of nature but recently discovered by modern
science.
If we had time we might dig deeper into this won
derful philosophy, and bring to light richer ores of
�Christianity and Education in India,
xy
truth and reasoning ; but we must stop. Nor will
such work be necessary for our present object, if what
we have seen of it, slight as it is, has given us some
idea of the rich stores of wisdom that are the birth
right and pride of the Hindu Pundit. Is it this Pun
dit, then, that would renounce such a legacy of sublime
conceptions for the no-philosophy and bad science of
the missionary ?
Thus the chances of Christianity in India are small
indeed, after every allowance,—bad enough with the
first class, but worse with the second, and worst of all
with the third and fourth. Hence is its present un
satisfactory condition. Hence, too, its no better future.
As for the good which the missionaries are doing in
India in the way of imparting elementary English
education to the people, I gladly bear testimony to
their comparative success. But here, again, to show
our true gratitude to our benefactors, we, Hindus, can
do nothing better than try to convince them, as early
as we may, how absolutely unnecessary are these vast
sacrifices on their part for this purpose. India has
never been known to be a poor country. We can
stand perfectly well upon our own resources. Only
like the magic gate in the Arabian Nights’ Entertain
ments, the portals of our hidden energies open to no
sound but that of wisdom. Let but a little more dis
cretion and wit be infused into our administrative
element, and we shall never hear again the irrational
clang of debts and deficits. What we want is not
alms from others’ riches, but only wise direction to
develope our own. Our revenue, wisely expended,
would not only defray all governmental expenses, but
would leave a surplus more than enough for the con
struction and working of the most efficient educational
machinery ever known.
Under these circumstances can we d o betteT than re
mind our simple well-wishers, that ch arity had better
begin at home. Looking on the condition of the
�18
Christianity and Education in India.
working-classes in this country, can any body doubt
for a second that they need every farthing, that the
superfluous wealth of their more favoured country
men could ever spare ? Neither need I insist that
they alone deserve these good offices—at least deserve
them with far greater right than we may ever pretend
to do.
Having thus completed our survey of the position
of Christianity in India, let us now turn to the other
system of education, which is being conducted by the
Government in a purely secular spirit. It may be
desirable, however, to dispose of a preliminary diffi
culty in our way, relative to the supposed duties of a
Government. It may be, and it has been, asked if
the Government of India is under any obligations to
do more for its people in the way of their education
than the Governments of other countries, such as
those of Europe, for instance. To this question I
must reply, Yes. India is now in a phase of its
existence, in which it is weak enough to require a
guiding hand, but is strong withal to prove recal
citrant whenever its sense of justice is outraged—a
phase, in consequence, in which its destinies are
trembling in the balance, in which the highest delicacy
and foresight are requisite in those who have its
management to bring about results in any degree
conducive to the promotion of human welfare and
progi e 5S.
Such considerations, I admit, are of no higher
validity than those which have for their basis the
good of mankind. But unless dreamy transcendent
alism and empty inanities are to sway our notions,
I know no considerations more sacred or more bind
ing in any code of morality than these. If, therefore,
our Government be upright in its intentions, and not
mercenary—if its highest object be the advancement
of our race in mental and material prosperity, and
not the squeezing out the means of luxurious subsis-
�Christianity and Education in India.
19
tence for its officials from an enraged people, alike to
the detriment of its own stability and the welfare of
a whole nation :—if, I say, our Government be what
it ought to be, and my happy experience of seven and
twenty years justifies me in asserting that it has been
such in every essential element; then it will do for
the attainment of this noble object whatever will
conduce to it. Unflinching discussion and free ventila
tion of the opinions of every one interested in the
issue are necessary, not so much to cavil with what
has been done, as to show how best may be done
what yet remains to be done.
I shall proceed, therefore, to express my views
boldly on this much neglected subject, under the con
viction that they will meet with that amount of con
sideration which, if not their intrinsic worth, at
least their sincerity will demand from every thought
ful person.
In the Government system of education, then, the
one feature that stands out most glaringly is the
utter absence of what we understand by scientific
education from first to last in general instruction.
Nay, even what is taught is taught in an exceedingly
unscientific way. It is not only in respect of the
sort of instruction vouchsafed, but also in respect of the
manner in which it is imparted, that we have to com
plain of being left strangely behind the times. In
fact, such a state of things is inevitable so long as
the character of the staff of educational officers there
employed continues to be what it has been hitherto.
Throughout the whole educational staff in the Madras
Presidency, I cannot now recollect one name known
to science or philosophy. Beginning from the Pro
vincial School Head-Master up to the Director of
Public Instruction inclusive, the reign of ignorance
is supreme—ignorance in everything that constitutes
the real essence of knowledge. One might almost
stagger with dismay, if it did not border on unmiti-
�20
Christianity and Education in India.
gated contempt, to see the sublime innocence displayed
by these bearers of western light for the illumination
of the east:—innocence, sublime indeed, since it is
innocence in respect of those very sciences and
systems of belief, engendered thereby, which con
stitute the highest triumphs of modern western
civilisation.
Now to refer for a few seconds to the immense dis
advantages which a want of scientific education en
tails upon a nation. In the present day this reference
need not detain us long. It is enough to recollect
that every step forward in civilisation has been due
to some advance in science. In the world in which
we live we are surrounded by powers, conservative as
well as destructive, a knowledge of which, to some
extent at least, is necessary for our continued exist
ence ; while life, with any degree of comfort and
success, is possible only when we have mastered
them to considerable detail, and can utilize them
for our own purposes. Further, Nature is an inex
orable mistress. The slightest infringement of her
laws, whether through ignorance or perversity, is
alike avenged with the severest penalties. In the
reign of natural law reparation is impossible. It is
a deduction from the persistence of force that if we
make a single false step, we must be content to carry
its consequences with us to the grave. Hence the
inadequacy, the disadvantage of any system of educa
tion which does not include a knowledge of nature.
There is yet another aspect of the question, which
might bear a little further handling. I allude to the
rapid increase of population, particularly in civilised
countries, whose pent-up energies, under accumulating
pressure, must, in longer or shorter periods, find a
vent, as they have found already so often even under
less imminent circumstances, in acts of aggression or
wars of extermination against one another, or against
less favoured races. How helpless must be the con-
�Christianity and Education in India.
11
'dition of a people, then, who, from want of requisite
culture, are unable either to avert or withstand these
destructive irruptions! I know the time is yet far
off, thank our stars, when these volcanic outbursts of
human energy will become general. But is it the
less certain on that account, or should we be justified
in enjoying the delicious repose of the present in the
fancied security of a distant future ? No, we shall
not be a second too soon in urging upon our govern
ment the necessity of making us the best return for
our money in their power—of starting us with a fair
chance for the imminent struggle for existence looming
before us—for the threatening future so pregnant
with mysterious fates.
There is yet another consideration we might urge
with less selfish motives. The sooner an equilibrium
is established between the different civilised nations
in respect of power of self-maintenance or strength
of resistance, the better will it be for all parties con
cerned. The hurricanes of human violence that have
swept so often over the globe with such destructive
fury would have lost much of their vehemence if in
equalities in the distribution of power and the conse
quent tendency to a convective rearrangement had
been less pronounced.
But irrespective of negative considerations, are there
no positive benefits in the course I recommend to
accrue to mankind in general 1 I answer unhesitat
ingly, yes ! The process of natural selection, founded
as it is upon the fixation of favourable proclivities
through inheritance, and the elimination of un
favourable tendencies in the struggle for existence, is
a process not less operative in the evolution of
organic functions than in that of organic forms.
Further, there is no reason why a process, through
which such high results have already been achieved,
should not continue to bring about results higher
still. In point of fact, it is not only man that has
�22
Christianity and Education in India.
been evolved from lower forms, but higher races of
men are being developed from lower ones. It is true,
in this latter process, the operation of the principle
is far from being unobstructed as hitherto. But
though at several points along its line of action, its
force is being deflected for a time or even retarded
by antagonistic contact with the peculiar agency of
man’s psychological nature, which itself has brought
about; still its ultimate triumph is not for a moment
to be doubted. We have only to look into the past
history of mankind, imperfect as it is, and then
project ourselves in imagination into the future a
few centuries hence, when the conditions of existence
shall wax more stringent, and the struggle for sur
vival more violent, to be satisfied of the truth of
what I contend for.
Such being the case, does it not follow that the
better the materials presented for this law to work
upon—when the time should come for its unrestricted,
at any rate, more steady operation, the higher will
be the results attained 1 Is it not evident, too, that
the sooner we set about improving the general con
dition of mankind in order that, when the day
shall come, there may be always enough of the
to
best and highest type available to cover the whole
ground of survival without adulteration, the more
effectually shall we have assisted nature in its
progress to a glorious destiny 1 Now with such views
as these before us, both as to the present and the future,
can it be doubted for a moment that India, with its
already two hundred millions of people, covering in
extent no inconsiderable part of the habitable globe,
and endowed with powers of vitality and resistance
by no means contemptible, is destined to play a
significant part in the future history of mankind, or
that every step in human progress will be influenced
by the state of preparation and reach of antecedent
advancement, with which it shall enter the contest 1
�Christianity and Education in India.
23
Hence, even from a cosmopolitan point of view is
the course I recommend rendered a crying necessity.
But, independently of remote advantages, which,
however real, lose half their importance to the ordi
nary mind from their distance, are there no conside
rations of less equivocal significance and of a more
immediate bearing upon our collective interests 1 The
answer once more must be in the affirmative. We
have seen already that true progress consists in nothing
so much as in a successful cultivation of science—a
deepening insight into nature and her operations.
No amount of mere literary accomplishments—no
amount of mere analytical skill, if employed only in
the manipulation of a few abstract mathematical ideas
-—can avail us amidst the rigid and unbending pheno
mena of concrete existence.
Now, of these concrete phenomena, which cannot
be evolved deductively from a few comprehensive first
principles, no class of them is of more vital import
ance to us than that whose explanation we term
sociology or social science. Though there is scarcely
a department of natural knowledge which does not
in the long run, either directly or indirectly, contri
bute to our advancement, it must still be granted
that some are more useful to us in their immediate
results than others. A large proportion of our know
ledge is purely speculative, and has no bearing upon
our practical interests; while every additional cor
relation of its various factors tends more to the equili
brium of thought than utility in the ordinary accep
tation of the term. Hence those correlations which
result in useful applications naturally excite greater
interest in us, and are of more immediate importance,
than those which are purely of a theoretical character.
From this point of view, it is needless to remark'
the correlations of social science must evidently take
the precedence. But, unfortunately, in proportion to
their usefulness is also their difficulty.
Their satis-
�24
Christianity and Education in India.
factory establishment can be accomplished only by
those who combine to a knowledge of the other
sciences a familiar acquaintance with the different
methods of investigation applicable to different groups
of phenomena.
The truth of this statement will
become manifest when we recollect the position which
sociology assumes in the classification of the sciences
founded upon the principle of progressive complexity.
The social philosopher has to lay under contribution,
for the elucidation of his subject, not only the agencies
peculiar to itself, but also those regulating the condi
tions of other phenomenal sequences.
But further
more, not to speak of correct generalisations to be
achieved in this difficult science—even for a careful
sifting and selection of proper materials for arriving
at such—a preliminary knowledge of the kind we
have characterised is indispensable.
To know what
order of facts may be eschewed as having no bearing
upon any particular question in hand, and what order
are to be seized upon and tabulated for purposes of
further elaboration, is in itself a process possible only
under a previous scientific culture.
Now for a satisfactory settlement of many a con
tested point in social science, I know no country
better calculated to supply the necessary data than
Hindustan. The very fact that India contains such a
large population, broken up into so many races, each
speaking a different language and each presenting
different peculiarities, physical, social, intellectual and
moral; while yet a thread of broad community in
several respects runs through them all; must in itself
be a sufficient argument in its favour. Even a careful
observation and intelligent tabulation of these
interesting differences, with a running commentary
on the obvious causes thereof, placed alongside of
the results of a similar process applied to points of
resemblance, must I conceive inevitably lead to no
ordinary consequences. I feel convinced that as a
�Christianity and Education in India.
25
knowledge of the classic language of India first led to
the creation of a science already rich in results, but
richer far in the results it has yet in store for us, so
it is only a thorough knowledge of social institutions,
religious beliefs and other characteristic circumstances
connected with the Hindus that will place social
science on a sure scientific basis. We may almost
predict the various lines along which such a know
ledge is likely to extend its influence, after what we
know of the growth of philology and geology within
the last few years. In fact there are several points
of close resemblance between geology and sociology.
The customs, habits, beliefs, languages, &c. of the differ
ent nations are as it were the different strati cal systems
of social geology; while those preserved in their
literatures are the entombed fossils of anterior states,
wdiich taken with the present are capable of affording
as consistent and satisfactory an explanation of social
evolution as geology does of organic development.
The countries of Europe, as seen within the historical
period, are in one sense enough to illucidate the later
steps in this evolution ; in the same way as the
latest or tertiary rocks are sufficient to explain the
comparatively recent passage of man through the
three stages of flint, bronze, and iron.
But just
as for the comprehension of the far deeper and more
searching question of his origin, a careful study
of the earlier systems—the mesozoic and the palyozoic
—was found necessary; so a discriminating knowledge
of the more aboriginal institutions and literatures of
the eastern nations is indispensable for the explanation
of the more important problem of the genesis of society.
But of all eastern countries, no land presents, within
such a comparatively small area, a larger or a more
varied field for research than India. No country, too,
comprises within itself such varied systems of living
and dead forms of social life, reaching to the remotest
past, as India once more. Hence it is manifest the
�26
Christianity and Education in India.
study of India from a sociological point of view must
be of the last importance.
This, however, can be done with any approach to
efficiency only by those who are most intimately
familiar with the phenomena concerned; and are
capable at the same time of such intelligent work. It
must be evident therefore that it is only Hindus that
can successfully undertake this all important task. But
Hindus, though Hindus they be, would be worse than
useless if they had not the requisite preliminary
training. As for strangers attempting to accomplish
this end without native agency, they might as soon
attempt the merest impossibilities for aught one cares
about the result. So long as Europeans and Hindus
are what they are, no matter whose fault it is that
they cannot understand and do not sympathise with
one another, such must continue to be the case.
Hence an additional reason, the last but not the least
weighty I have herein adduced, why the Hindus should
receive a scientific education.
And now having thus brought these few reflections
on Hindu education to a close, it only remains for
me to thank you sincerely for the kind and indulgent
hearing you have accorded to my unequal attempt to
handle a subject full of the deepest interest and im
portance.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity and education in India: a lecture delivered at St. George's Hall, London, November 12, 1871
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Row, A. Jyram
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 26 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5483
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Christianity
India
Hinduism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christianity and education in India: a lecture delivered at St. George's Hall, London, November 12, 1871), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christian Education-India
Conway Tracts
Hinduism
India